Unethical Authorship in Scientific Publications (A Review of the Problem)

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/ .

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Bibliometrics as a promising tool for solving publication ethics issues

Publication ethics principles became one of the main aspects of conducting scientific research and presenting its results. Publication ethics challenges cover a wide range of problems of varying importance that involve all participants of publication processes: authors, academic authorities, peer-reviewers, editorial board members, publishers, and funders. All stakeholders put efforts to make modern science and publication processes ethical. This goal is achieved first of all through detailed criteria of publication ethics and extensive author guidelines, as well as by increasing the level of awareness of these criteria in educational programs aimed at prophylactics of research misconduct. However, there is a need for technical facilities for detecting different cases of violation of ethical principles, and bibliometric methods are one of the most promising approaches. The paper summarizes the authors' recent studies on bibliometric perspectives for detecting plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, and official misconduct among editorial board members.

Publication Ethics

Publications in the field of medical literature are a matter of prestige and fame for doctors. While genuine research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge, fraudulent data make publication unreliable, demeans the credibility of the author and reduces faith in science. Research misconduct includes the three cardinal sins fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. To promote highest standards in publication ethics, Committee on Publication Ethics provides advice and guidance to journals and publishers. Investigators should abide by ethical norms during the conduct of the research. Journals also maintain editorial standards and have well-defined policies for responding to misconduct. With an increase in medical publications over the years, it is important for all stakeholders to abide by publication ethics, in order to uphold the sanctity of research and credence in science.

"There must be Someone's Name Under Every Bit of Text, Even if it is Unimportant or Incorrect": Plagiarism as a Learning Strategy

The article offers analyses of the phenomenon of copying (plagiarism) in higher education. The analyses were based on a quantitative survey using questionnaires, conducted in 2019 at one of the Polish universities. Plagiarism is discussed here both as an element of the learning process and a subject of public practices. The article presents students’ definitions of plagiarism, their strategies for unclear or difficult situations, their experiences with plagiarism and their opinions on how serious and widespread this phenomenon is. Focusing on the non-plagiarism norm, that is the rule that students are not allowed to plagiarize, and in order to redefine it we have determined two strategies adopted by students. The first is withdrawing in fear of making a mistake (omitting the norm), which means not using referencing in unclear situations, e.g. when the data about the source of information are absent. The second is reducing the scope of the norm applicability (limiting the norm), characterized by the fact that there are areas where the non-plagiarism norm must be observed more closely and those where it is not so important, e.g. respondents classify works as credit-level and diploma-level texts, as in the credit-level work they “can” sometimes plagiarize since the detection rate is poor and consequences are not severe. The presented results are particularly significant for interpreting plagiarism in an international context (no uniform definition of plagiarism) and for policies aimed at limiting the scale of the phenomenon (plagiarism detection systems¹).

The Methodological Basis of Defining Research Trends and Fronts

The methodological and technical aspects of identifying research fronts and trends in the development of science are considered. Based on the literature data, a comparison of scientometric methods for finding research fronts was carried out: analysis of publication activity, direct citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and content analysis. The advantages of the combined application of various approaches are shown, the role of expert assessment and verification of the results of scientometric analysis is emphasized. We revealed topical problems associated with the detection of scientific fronts by scientometric methods and showed promising directions in their solution.