Inappropriate Authorship and Kinship in Research Evaluation

[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 MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.

Whether productive authors using the national health insurance database also achieve higher individual research metrics: A bibliometric study

BACKGROUND

Many researchers use the National Health Insurance Research Database (HIRD) to publish medical papers and gain exceptional outputs in academics. Whether they also obtain excellent citation metrics remains unclear.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) using the terms Taiwan and HIRD. We then downloaded 1997 articles published from 2012 to 2016. An authorship-weighted scheme (AWS) was applied to compute coauthor partial contributions from the article bylines. Both modified x-index and author impact factor (AIF) proved complementary to Hirsch's h-index for calculating individual research achievements (IRA). The metrics from 4684 authors were collected for comparison. Three hundred eligible authors with higher x-indexes were located and displayed on Google Maps dashboards. Ten separate clusters were identified using social network analysis (SNA) to highlight the research teams. The bootstrapping method was used to examine the differences in metrics among author clusters. The Kano model was applied to classify author IRAs into 3 parts.

RESULTS

The most productive author was Investigator#1 (Taichung City, Taiwan), who published 149 articles in 2015 and included 803 other members in his research teams. The Kano diagram results did not support his citation metrics beyond other clusters and individuals in IRAs.

CONCLUSION

The AWS-based bibliometric metrics make individual weighted research evaluations possible and available for comparison. The study results of productive authors using HIRD did not support the view that higher citation metrics exist in specific disciplines.

Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils

Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.