Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .

Assessing Authorship Rates over Time in Original Radiologic Research Publications

Background Previous studies have shown an increase in the number of authors on radiologic articles between 1950 and 2013, but the cause is unclear. Purpose To determine whether authorship rate in radiologic and general medical literature has continued to increase and to assess study variables associated with increased author numbers. Materials and Methods PubMed/Medline was searched for articles published between January 1998 and October 2022 in general radiology and general medical journals with the top five highest current impact factors. Generalized linear regression analysis was used to calculate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the numbers of authors. Wald tests assessed the associations between study variables and the numbers of authors per article. Combined mixed-effects regression analysis was performed to compare general medicine and radiology journals. Results There were 3381 original radiologic research articles that were analyzed. Authorship rate increased between 1998 (median, six authors; IQR, 4) and 2022 (median, 11 authors; IQR, 8). Later publication year was associated with more authors per article (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001) after adjusting for publishing journal, continent of origin of first author, number of countries involved, PubMed/Medline original article type, study design, number of disciplines involved, multicenter or single-center study, reporting of a priori power calculation, reporting of obtaining informed consent, study sample size, and number of article pages. There were 1250 general medicine original research articles that were analyzed. Later publication year was also associated with more authors after adjustment for the study variables (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.05; P < .001). There was a stronger increase in authorship by publication year for general medicine journals compared with radiology journals (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001). Conclusion An increase in authorship rate was observed in the radiologic and general medical literature between 1998 and 2022, and the number of authors per article was independently associated with later year of publication. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Arrivé in this issue.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

The Author Truncation "et al." in Article References: An Anachronism That Needs to Change

Background: Valuable research requires contribution from many experts; however, the "et al." truncation often keeps all individuals from being acknowledged. The adoption of a new citation rule (list all authors up to 30, followed by et al.) would allow more authors to be acknowledged. The purpose of this study was to (1) explore the citation styles of the top 10 Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medical journals and (2) compare the number of extra pages required, and the number of additional authors acknowledged when the "new rule" is implemented. Methods: The top 10 journals in Plastic Surgery, Surgery, and Medicine were identified. The citation styles used in each of the journals were reviewed and the reference list from a recently published article was extracted. The original reference list was used to create an Extended Reference List using the new rule. Results: Most journals implemented "et al." when seven or more authors were listed. Ten articles required additional pages to accommodate the Extended Reference List. When the "et al." truncation was introduced after 30 authors, there was an almost 100% chance of all authors being included. The adoption of this rule rarely resulted in the need for additional pages, especially within Plastic Surgery. Conclusions: In a time of electronic publishing, where constraints such as article and journal page length should not be important factors, all authors should be recognized. The use of the "et al." truncation should be discouraged by all individuals involved in the production and publication of research. Scenario You are asked by the Editor-in-Chief of your specialty's journal to review an article in your area of expertise. You gladly accept the task. One of the questions you are required to answer in your review is whether the authors of the submitted manuscript have missed any important articles in their references. As you are the recognized expert in this field, you glance at the references to see if a key article you published 3 years earlier has been included. The first author of that article was a junior resident in your service and the research was done under your supervision. To their credit, the authors included the said article, but you are dismayed that the reference does not include your name. It includes only the names of the first three authors, all junior residents in your service. Your name, and the names of many others, are lost in the et al. truncation.

Integrity in cardiovascular imaging research

OBJECTIVE

To gain more insight in scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging research by conducting a survey among all corresponding authors who published in cardiovascular imaging journals.

METHODS

Corresponding authors who published in one of eight major cardiovascular imaging journals in 2021 were requested to complete a questionnaire about scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging.

RESULTS

Responses from 160 corresponding authors were received. The majority of respondents had a medical doctor degree (81.1%), held an academic position (93.8%, of which 44.0% as full professor), and had >10 years of research experience (72.5%). Overall confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in cardiovascular imaging was high, with a median score of 8 out of 10 (IQR 2). 5 respondents (3.1%) declared having committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years and 38 respondents (23.8%) declared having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. 85.6% of respondents think that publication bias is present. 50% of respondents declared that any of their publications in the past 5 years had a co-author who actually did not deserve this co-authorship.

CONCLUSION

Experts in the field report that several forms of scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in cardiovascular imaging research. Despite these reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular imaging research is deemed high.

Scientific Fraud, Publication Bias, and Honorary Authorship in Nuclear Medicine

Our objective was to investigate nuclear medicine scientists' experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to Journal Citation Reports) in 2021 received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: In total, 254 (12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to having committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 y. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range, 2-10) on a 1- to 10-point scale for their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a β-coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI, 0.512-1.454; P < 0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.

Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

PURPOSE

To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues' scientific work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity.

RESULTS

A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0-10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud.

CONCLUSION

Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives.

[Authorship and Inappropriate Authorship from an Ethical Publication Perspective]

Authorship is important for research integrity and publication ethics, acting as the basis for credit and academic achievement. Moreover, publication achievements have a significant impact on research grants and academic careers. Inappropriate authorship has been reported for several reasons, including complex interests and competitive environments. One form of this is representative authorship misuse, which includes honorary and ghost authorships. Kin co-authorship, such as parent-children authorship, is another form of inappropriate authorship that has recently emerged as a social problem in Korea. To address these issues, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established criteria for authorship. Similarly, many journals use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) systems to prevent authorship misuse and systematically evaluate author credit and responsibility. Herein, this article reviews authorship and inappropriate authorship, as well as introduces methods to avoid authorship misuse.

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine

PURPOSE

To facilitate decision-making in authorship positions, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) developed a guideline that stipulates criteria authors should meet in order to merit authorship. Authors who did not meet these criteria and still enlisted as authors, are called 'honorary' authors. In this study, the prevalence and characteristics of honorary authorship (HA) is assessed in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine.

METHODS

A survey was distributed among corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in six Orthopedics-dedicated journals.

RESULTS

479 of the 1392 approached authors responded, leading to a response rate of 34.4%. 91.6% of the respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines, whereas 67.8% were aware of the issue of HA. Overall, the prevalence of guideline-based HA was 41.9%, while the prevalence of self-perceived HA was 14.7%. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as author on the departments, was associated with a higher rate of guideline-based HA (OR 5.03) and self-perceived HA (OR 3.31).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of HA in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine is high, but comparable to other medical fields. Transparency in authorship decision-making is crucial to maintain liability in scientific articles.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East

One of the core problems of scientific research authorship is honorary authorship. It violates the ethical principle of clear and appropriate assignment of scientific research contributions. The prevalence of honorary authorship worldwide is alarmingly high across various research disciplines. As a result, many academic institutions and publishers were trying to explore ways to overcome this unethical research practice. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommended criteria for authorship as guidance for researchers submitting manuscripts to biomedical Journals. However, despite the ICMJE guidelines, honorary authorship is still significantly present across various health research disciplines. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and knowledge of health care researchers towards honorary authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines across different health care fields in Jordan, which to our knowledge was never explored before. Data from an electronic survey that was distributed among researchers working in different healthcare fields across several major universities in Jordan, revealed that most of the respondents were assistant professors working mainly in the schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. The majority of the respondents (65.5%) were not aware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines. And, around 37% reported the inclusion of an honorary author, in which the most common non-authorship task reported by 73% of the respondents was reviewing the manuscript. Our findings emphasize the need for national academic and research institutions to address the issue of authorship in their educational programs and internal policies.

Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008-2019

OBJECTIVE

Authorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.

DESIGN

This study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.

RESULTS

The overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.

CONCLUSION

Overall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.

Clinical Research Authorships: Ethics and Problem-Solving

The article helps resolve the intricate authorship issue based on global organizations’ regulations. It draws a fine line between authorship and contributorship from the research ethics perspective.

Do perceived honorary authors influence publication chance? Survey evidence from the journal of critical care

PURPOSE

Perceived Honorary Authors (PHAs) are defined as authors on manuscripts who did not contribute enough. The association between PHAs and publication chance in journals is unknown. As a start, our aim was to examine the prevalence of PHAs in the Journal of Critical Care (JCC). Furthermore, we investigated whether PHAs influences publication chance in the JCC. Also, we attempt to replicate factors associated with the prevalence of PHAs found in earlier studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2018 and March 2019, we invited 1310 corresponding authors of submissions after the final editorial decision to complete a survey. Descriptive statistics and multinomial and binary logistic regressions were used in data analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 475 respondents (response rate: 36%), we found a prevalence of PHAs of 13%. There was no significant association between PHAs and editorial decisions. Furthermore, if a senior member of the department who is automatically an author was present, our multivariate analysis showed a positive association with PHAs (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.99-7.54). However, such senior department member was not associated with the editorial decision in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of PHAs was conform other studies 13%, and did not influence publication chance.

Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship

The aim of this paper is to analyze the attitudes and reactions of researchers towards an authorship claim made by a researcher in a position of authority who has not made any scientific contribution to a manuscript or helped to write it. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews conducted with 33 researchers at three seniority levels working in biomedicine and the life sciences in Switzerland. This manuscript focuses on the analysis of participants' responses when presented with a vignette describing an authorship assignment dilemma within a research group. The analysis indicates that researchers use a variety of explanations and arguments to justify inclusion of what guidelines would describe as honorary or guest authorship. Fuzzy parameters such as "substantial contribution" lead to varied interpretation and consequently convenient application of authorship guidelines in practice. Factors such as the culture of the research group, the values and practice shaped by the research leaders, the hierarchy and relative (perceived) positions of power within research institutions, and the importance given to publications as the currency for academic success and growth tend to have a strong influence on authorship practice. Unjustified authorship assignment practices can be reduced to some extent by creating empowering research cultures where each researcher irrespective of his/her career stage feels empowered to confidently raise concerns without fearing adverse impact on their professional lives. However, individual researchers and research institutions currently have limited influence on established methods for evaluating academic success, which is primarily based on the number of high impact publications.

Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Honorary authorship (HA) refers to enlisted authors who did not make sufficient contributions to a paper according to the guidelines, as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This study assessed the proportion of, and factors associated with, HA in cardiothoracic surgical literature in 2017.

METHODS

Five cardiothoracic surgery journals were selected based on their impact factors in 2017 for evaluation of HA. Articles were included in the analysis if there was more than 1 listed author and if there was an available E-mail address of the corresponding author. All corresponding authors received an invitation to fill out our survey regarding their paper in 2017.

RESULTS

In total, 1511 authors opened the invitation, resulting in a total of 590 respondents (28.9%); 77.1% of all authors were aware of the ICMJE guidelines and 47.0% were aware of the general issue of HA. A total of 367 (62.7%) authors stated that at least one of the coauthors had performed solely nonauthorship tasks, whereas 148 (25.3%) authors stated that they believed that their article contained at least one honorary author. Having a senior member who was automatically included on all submitted manuscripts and not being aware of the general issue of HA were associated with significantly greater odds of having HA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that, despite the high awareness of the ICMJE guidelines, there is a large discrepancy in perceived HA and guideline-based HA. The authors plead for a better understanding and implementation of the guidelines in a more transparent authorship system.

Authorship Considerations for Publishing in Pharmacy Education Journals

The distinction of authorship and its associated credit has important implications for academia. Pharmacy education encompasses faculty members from a wide and diverse range of disciplines, including the clinical, basic, and social sciences. These disciplines embody varying traditions and perspectives concerning who qualifies for authorship. As an academy, pharmacy education must do more to equip education researchers with the tools needed to navigate authorship decisions. The following commentary provides examples and recommendations concerning the issue of authorship within pharmacy education. We define authorship, examine authorship guidelines from health professions and education disciplines, and discuss authorship order. We then provide authorship recommendations for pharmacy education with the goal of supporting authorship decisions and further promoting discourse about authorship.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

To maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas deliberate scientific misconduct such as data fabrication is clearly unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported misconduct and QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.

METHOD

In 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in a variety of irresponsible research behaviors. The items were adapted from previously published surveys.

RESULTS

In total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD = 11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported irresponsible research behaviors were adding authors who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one irresponsible behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of misconduct and QRPs. Consequently, reforms may be needed to improve the conduct of HPE research.

Honorary Authorship in Radiologic Research Articles: Assessment of Pattern and Longitudinal Evolution

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the pattern and longitudinal evolution of honorary authorship in major radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of original research articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2014 through June 2016). Questions addressed the perception of honorary authorship and contributing factors, as well as demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

RESULTS

Of 1839 first authors, 315 (17.3%) responded. Of these, 31.4% (97/309) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship and 54.3% (159/293) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria. Of eight factors significantly associated with the perception of honorary authorship on univariate analysis, two were retained by the stepwise multivariate model: having someone suggest adding an author and a coauthor performing only a nonauthorship task.

CONCLUSION

There has been little variation in the perception of honorary authorship among first authors of original research articles in radiology. The suggestion of adding an author and having coauthors performing only nonauthorship tasks are the two most important risk factors for honorary authorship. Our findings indicate that a prolonged course of transformation of current cultural norms is required to decrease honorary authorship.

Frequency and Factors Associated With Honorary Authorship in Indian Biomedical Journals: Analysis of Papers Published From 2012 to 2013

Honorary authorship is the inclusion of an author on an article whose contribution does not warrant authorship. We conducted an Internet-based survey among first authors publishing in Indian biomedical journals from 2012 to 2013 to study the frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship. The response rate was 27% (245/908) with the prevalence of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined, and unperceived honorary authorship of 20.9% (50/239), 60% (147/245), and 46.9% (115/245), respectively. Those residing in India were found to list more honorary authors. We hope to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorship among researchers in India and elsewhere.

The many hands of science

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify the research contributions of authors and subauthors in order to outline how authorship, as opposed to acknowledgment, is awarded in the lab-based life sciences.

Design/methodology/approach

The work tasks described in author contribution statements and acknowledgments sections of research articles published in Nature Chemical Biology were classified according to a three-layered taxonomy: core layer; middle layer; outer layer.

Findings

Most authors are core or middle layer contributors, i.e. they perform at least one core or middle layer task. In contrast, most subauthors are outer layer contributors. While authors tend to be involved in several tasks, subauthors tend to make single contributions. The small but significant share of authors performing only outer layer tasks suggests a disconnect in author attribution between traditional author guidelines and scientific practice. A level of arbitrariness in whether a contributor is awarded authorship or subauthorship status is reported. However, this does not implicate first or last authorships.

Research limitations/implications

Data from one journal only are used. Transferability is limited to research in high impact journals in the lab-based life sciences.

Originality/value

The growth in scientific collaboration underlines the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the distinction between authorship and subauthorship in terms of the types of research contributions that they de facto represent. By utilizing hitherto unexplored data sources this study addresses a gap in the literature, and gives an important insight into the reward system of science.

Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?

Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors’ responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.

Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: cross-sectional study of researchers' roles and author order in the Annals of Internal Medicine

OBJECTIVE

How researchers' contributions relate to author order on the byline remains unclear. We sought to identify researchers' contributions associated with author order, and to explore the existence of author profiles.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Published record.

PARTICIPANTS

1139 authors of 119 research articles published in 2015 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Presence or absence of 10 contributions, reported by each author, published in the journal.

RESULTS

On average, first authors reported 7.1 contributions, second authors 5.2, middle authors 4.0, penultimate authors 4.5 and last authors 6.4 (p<0.001). The first author made the greatest contributions to drafting the article, designing the study, analysing and interpreting the data, and providing study materials or patients. The second author contributed to data analysis as well and to drafting the article. The last author was most involved in obtaining the funding, critically revising the article, designing the study and providing support. Factor analysis yielded three author profiles-Thinker (study design, revision of article, obtaining funding), Soldier (providing material or patients, providing administrative and logistical support, collecting data) and Scribe (analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, statistical expertise). These profiles do not strictly correspond to byline position.

CONCLUSIONS

First, second and last authors of research articles made distinct contributions to published research. Three authorship profiles can be used to summarise author contributions. These findings shed light on the organisation of clinical research teams and may help researchers discuss, plan and report authorship in a more transparent way.

Authorship Trends in 30 Years of the Journal of Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While various studies have investigated trends in characteristics of authors in other medical literature, no study has examined these characteristics in the field of arthroplasty.

METHODS

A database was created of all articles published in The Journal of Arthroplasty in 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Degree(s) of authors, number of authors, number of references, and region of institution were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1343 original articles were assessed over the study period. There was a significant increase in the number of authors per publication from 3.45 in 1986 to 4.98 in 2015 (P < .001) and number of references per article from 17.36 to 29.76 (P < .001). There was a significant increase in proportion of first authors with a bachelor's degree (P = .001), MD/PhD (P < .001), and MD/MBA (P = .016), with a significant decrease in first authors with an MD degree only (P < .001). There was a significant increase in number of last authors with an MD/PhD (P = .001) and MD/MBA (P = .003). There has been a significant growth in papers from outside North America (P = .007), with a decrease in articles from the UK/Ireland (P = .003) and an increase in contributions from the Far East (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Trends of authorship characteristics in the arthroplasty literature largely mirror those seen in other medical literature including increased number of authors per article over time, changes in author qualifications, and increased contributions from international author groups.

Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.

Retracted Publications Within Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize trends related to retracted publications within radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was queried to identify all articles with the publication type "retracted publication" or "notification of retraction." Articles published within radiology journals were identified using Journal Citation Reports' journal categories. Available versions of original articles and publication notices were accessed from journal websites. Citations to retracted publications were identified using Web of Science. Overall trends were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight retracted original research articles were identified within radiology journals since 1983, which included 1.1% of all PubMed "retracted publication" entries. Distinct PubMed entries were available for the retracted publication and retraction notification in 39 of 48 articles. The original PDF was available for 37 articles, although the articles were not watermarked as retracted in 23 cases. In six cases with a watermarked PDF, further searches identified nonwatermarked versions. Original HTML versions were available for 13 articles but 11 were not watermarked. The mean (± SD) delay between publication and retraction was 2.7 ± 2.8 years (range, 0-16 years). The mean number of citations to retracted articles was 10.9 ± 17.1 (range, 0-94 citations). Reasons for retraction included problematic or incorrect methods or results (although it typically was unclear whether these represented honest errors or misconduct) in 33.3% of cases, complete or partial duplicate publication in 33.3% of cases, plagiarism in 14.6% of cases, a permission issue in 8.3% of cases, the publisher's error in 6.3% of cases, and no identified reason in 6.3% of cases. One or no retractions occurred annually from 1986 to 2001, although two or more retractions occurred annually in nine of the 12 years from 2002 through 2013.

CONCLUSION

Retraction represents an uncommon, yet potentially increasing, issue within radiology journals that publishers have inconsistently and insufficiently addressed. Greater awareness and training in proper biomedical research conduct, as well as establishment and enforcement of standardized publishers' policies, are warranted.

Trend Toward an Increase in Authorship for Leading Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine authorship trends in two leading radiology journals over the past 2 decades.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All original articles (n = 5195) published in AJR and Radiology for the periods 1991-1993, 2001-2003, and 2011-2013 were reviewed. The following variables were extrapolated from each article: number of authors, radiologic subspecialty, and country of origin. The number of authors listed per article was correlated with the publication period, journal, radiologic subspecialty, and country of origin.

RESULTS

The mean number of authors per article increased from 5.1 in 1991-1993 to 6.2 in 2001-2003 and to 7.1 in 2011-2013 across both journals (p < 0.0001). Both AJR and Radiology had statistically significant increases in the number of authors per article over time, but the number of authors per article in Radiology was significantly higher than that in AJR (p < 0.0001 for all study periods). The number of authors per article significantly increased for all radiologic subspecialties. The mean numbers of authors per article by country of origin are as follows: Italy, 8.3; Japan, 7.6; France, 7.5; Germany, 7.4; China, 7.3; Austria, 7.2; and South Korea, 6.8. These were significantly higher than the mean number of authors from Switzerland, which was 6.3.

CONCLUSION

The number of authors significantly and consistently increased in two leading radiology journals over the past 2 decades.

Trends in Authorship Patterns in High-Impact Radiology Publications, 1980-2013

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Concerns have been raised about authorship inflation in medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine how the number of authors per radiology article has changed over time with regard to study type and geographic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected data on study type, authorship count, and the country of the corresponding author for a sample of articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and European Radiology in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2013. Only original research and review articles were considered. We computed trends in the mean number of authors per article for each journal and compared authorship trends between study types and geographic region. The study did not involve human subjects and was therefore exempt from institutional board review at our institution.

RESULTS

A total of 682 articles were reviewed, of which 572 were original research articles (83.9%) and 110 review articles (16.1%). The overall number of authors per article doubled from 3.6 in 1980 to 7.3 in 2013 (P < .001). From 1990 to 2013, the largest absolute increase in authorship count was in Radiology (4.4-8.1, 84.1%, P < .001). The largest increase in authorship occurred in original research articles (3.7-7.8, 111%, P < .001). Although authorship counts were greatest in Asia over most study period, growth in authorship count was highest in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorship count has dramatically increased in radiology journals in the last 3 decades, particularly in original research articles and in Europe.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship in Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to investigate authorship trends in radiology journals, and whether International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations have had an impact on these trends. A secondary objective was to explore other variables associated with authorship trends.

METHODS

A retrospective, bibliometric analysis of 49 clinical radiology journals published from 1946-2013 was conducted. The following data was exported from MEDLINE (1946 to May 2014) for each article: authors' full name, year of publication, primary author institution information, language of publication and publication type. Microsoft Excel Visual Basics for Applications scripts were programmed to categorize extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the overall mean number of authors per article over time, impact of ICMJE guidelines, authorship frequency per journal, country of origin, article type and language of publication.

RESULTS

216,271 articles from 1946-2013 were included. A univariate analysis of the mean authorship frequency per year of all articles yielded a linear relationship between time and authorship frequency. The mean number of authors per article in 1946 (1.42) was found to have increased consistently by 0.07 authors/ article per year (R² = 0.9728, P<0.001) to 5.79 authors/article in 2013. ICMJE guideline dissemination did not have an impact on this rise in authorship frequency. There was considerable variability in mean authors per article and change over time between journals, country of origin, language of publication and article type.

CONCLUSION

Overall authorship for 49 radiology journals across 68 years has increased markedly with no demonstrated impact from ICMJE guidelines. A higher number of authors per article was seen in articles from: higher impact journals, European and Asian countries, original research type, and those journals who explicitly endorse the ICMJE guidelines.

Honorary authorship in postgraduate medical training

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether postgraduate medical trainees are exposed to honorary authorship, whether they are aware of the topic and if they believe that further support and education concerning this issue is needed.

METHODS

Postgraduate medical trainees were contacted by email with a link to our questionnaire on two occasions (2 and 26 February 2014) and then contacted in person (June-November 2014). The questionnaire topics included demographics, authorship practice beliefs and experience, and authorship policy-related questions. We also determined the proportion of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined and unperceived honorary authorship in the respondent group.

RESULTS

The response rate was 27.7%. The prevalence of perceived, ICMJE-defined and unperceived honorary authorship was 38.1%, 57.3% and 24.2%, respectively; 90.1% were unaware of the ICMJE authorship criteria, 92.6% were unaware of a support system for authorship disputes, but 91.8% believed such a system should be implemented and 93.3% believed medical trainees and faculty should be instructed on authorship guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

A paradigm shift from the current system is needed, where enforcement of ethical authorship practices is shifted away from journal editors. Instruction on the topic should be provided to medical trainees throughout medical school and continued during further training. A process should also be outlined to resolve authorship disputes. These measures may encourage researchers to have an open discussion on the topic prior to the commencement of a research project, and to resolve authorship conflicts in a constructive manner. We also hope this paper encourages further work on the topic.

Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care.

Authorship Inflation in Medical Publications

The number of authors per manuscript in peer-reviewed medical journals has increased substantially in the last several decades. Several reasons have been offered to explain this authorship growth, including increased researcher collaboration, honorary authorship driven by increased pressures for funding and promotion, the belief that including senior authors will facilitate publication, and the growing complexity of medical research. It is unknown, however, whether authorship has grown over time due to growing complexity of published academic articles, in which case growth could be warranted, or whether it has grown due to pressures of funding and academic promotion, which have created “authorship inflation.” To answer this question, we analyzed data on authorship count, study type, and size of study population for the first 50 original articles published in each decade during 1960-2010 in 3 major medical journals. Within each type of study we considered (eg, randomized trials, observational studies, etc), average authorship rose more than 3-fold during this period. Similar growth persisted after adjustment for changes in study population sizes over time. Our findings suggest that increasing research complexity is an inadequate explanation for authorship growth. Instead, growth in authorship appears inflationary.

Scientific misconducts and authorship conflicts: Indian perspective

This article is a narrative review about how appropriate authorship can be achieved, a brief mention about various scientific misconducts, the reason and consequences of such misconducts and finally, the policies to be adopted by the aspiring authors to avert these problems. The literature search was performed in the Google and PubMed using 'scientific misconduct', 'honorary/ghost authorship', 'publish-or-perish', 'plagiarism' and other related key words and phrases. More than 300 free full-text articles published from 1990 to 2015 were retrieved and studied. Many consensus views have been presented regarding what constitutes authorship, the authorship order and different scientific misconducts. The conflicts about authorship issues related to publication of dissertation, the area of the grey zone have been discussed. Suggestions from different authorities about improving the existing inappropriate authorship issues have been included.

Ghost and guest authors: you can't always trust who you read

Clinicians and educators rely on the published medical information. They trust that original research and narrative or systematic reviews are reliable and the authorship is transparent, but this is not always the case. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors is required by most journals, disclosure will not detect ghost or guest authorship. Ghosting or guesting is of more than academic interests because it can directly or indirectly affect patient care. Therefore it is important for readers to be aware of this issue, and to be alert to suggestions that particular works may be at increased risk for ghost or guest authors. It is important to take a proactive stance against these practices. Industry, universities, research centers, and professional medical associations should be clear and unequivocal in condeming these practices. Processes need to be in place to investigate and, if need be, deal with violations. Clearly, we must all participate in this endeavor for professional, ethical, and most importantly, best patient care reasons.

Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency?

PURPOSE

To quantify the potential effect of geographic factors on the frequency of honorary authorship in four major radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of all original research articles published in American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2009 through June 2011). Questions addressed guidelines used for determining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ(2) tests. Multiple-variable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

RESULTS

Of 1398 first authors, 328 (23.5%) responded. Of these, 91 (27.7%) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship, and 165 (50.3%) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. The perception of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P ≤ .0001) among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America and in institutions where a section or department head was automatically listed as coauthor. A significantly lower (P ≤ .0001) perception of honorary authorship was associated with adherence to ICMJE criteria and with policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics.

CONCLUSION

Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America. Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guidelines and policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics.

Honorary authorship

This issue of Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation includes an article by Rajasekaran et al that addresses the persistent, difficult, and unsettled issue of unwarranted authorship as it applies to physical medicine and rehabilitation. The findings that it exists and that its frequency is similar to the 25% to 50% rates reported in other medical specialties are discouraging but, unfortunately, not surprising. They do, however, warrant discussion. This commentary attempts to do so and begins with a review of Rajasekaran's findings. It then proceeds to compare them with other work in the literature and concludes with a discussion of (1) why unwarranted authorship matters; (2) if it matters, why does it matter; and (3) what we as authors, editors, and the publishing world can do about it. Our goal is to give us all an improved understanding of the situation as well a little more backbone when dealing with the pressures associated with both overt and covert suggestions for the inclusion of authors that we may believe are unwarranted.