Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries

Previous studies have demonstrated an increasing trend of the number of authors across various fields over the years. This trend has been attributed to the necessity for larger collaborations and, at times, to ethical issues regarding authorship attribution. Our study focuses on the evolution of authorship trends in the field of Neuroscience. We conducted our analysis based on a dataset containing 580,782 neuroscience publications produced from 2000 to 2022, focusing on the publications within the Group of ten (G10) countries. Using a matrix-based methodology, we extracted and analyzed the average number of authors per country. Our findings reveal a consistent rise in authorship across all G10 countries over the past two decades. Italy emerged with the highest average number of authors, while France stood out for experiencing the most significant increase, particularly in the last decade. The countries with the lowest number of authors per publication were the USA, UK and Canada. Differences between countries could result from variations in the size of collaboration between researchers in different countries. Additionally, these differences may depend on utilitarian considerations aimed at receiving higher scores in the individual evaluation of their own work. We propose that a normalization procedure for the number of authors should be implemented to ensure a fair evaluation of researchers.

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research

Questionable research practices (QRP) are believed to be widespread, but empirical assessments are generally restricted to a few types of practices. Furthermore, conceptual confusion is rife with use and prevalence of QRPs often being confused as the same quantity. We present the hitherto most comprehensive study examining QRPs across scholarly fields and knowledge production modes. We survey perception, use, prevalence and predictors of QRPs among 3,402 researchers in Denmark and 1,307 in the UK, USA, Croatia and Austria. Results reveal remarkably similar response patterns among Danish and international respondents (τ = 0.85). Self-reported use indicates whether respondents have used a QRP in recent publications. 9 out of 10 respondents admitted using at least one QRP. Median use is three out of nine QRP items. Self-reported prevalence reflects the frequency of use. On average, prevalence rates were roughly three times lower compared to self-reported use. Findings indicated that the perceived social acceptability of QRPs influenced self-report patterns. Results suggest that most researchers use different types of QRPs within a restricted time period. The prevalence estimates, however, do not suggest outright systematic use of specific QRPs. Perceived pressure was the strongest systemic predictor for prevalence. Conversely, more local attention to research cultures and academic age was negatively related to prevalence. Finally, the personality traits conscientiousness and, to a lesser degree, agreeableness were also inversely associated with self-reported prevalence. Findings suggest that explanations for engagement with QRPs are not only attributable to systemic factors, as hitherto suggested, but a complicated mixture of experience, systemic and individual factors, and motivated reasoning.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020

BACKGROUND

The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020).

RESULTS

The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research. Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes' (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of 'Anatome medullae spinalis'

This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work 'Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium' (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of 'Anatome medullae spinalis.' The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty-students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor-mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs.

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.

A Decade of Global Skull Base Researchers: Authorship Trends from 3,295 Abstracts in the Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base

Objective  The North American Skull Base Society (NASBS) multidisciplinary annual conference hosts skull base researchers from across the globe. We hypothesized that the work presented at the NASBS annual conference would reveal diverse authorship teams in terms of specialty and geography. Methods  In this retrospective review, abstracts presented at the NASBS annual meeting and subsequently published in the Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base between 01/01/2011 and 12/31/2020 were collected. Variables extracted included year, type of presentation, and author names and affiliations. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS V23.0 with p -values less than 0.05 considered significant. Geographic heat maps were created to assess author distribution, and a network analysis was performed to display authorship collaboration between geographic regions. Results  Of 3,312 published abstracts, 731 (22.1%) had an author with an affiliation outside of the United States. Fifty-seven distinct countries were represented. Three-hundred twenty-four abstracts (9.8%) had authorship teams representing at least 2 different countries. The top five US states by abstract representation were Pennsylvania, California, New York, Ohio, and Minnesota. A majority of authors reported neurosurgery affiliations (56.7% first authors, 53.2% last authors), closely followed by otolaryngology (39.1% first authors, 41.5% last authors). No solo authors and very few (3.3%) of the first authors reported a departmental affiliation outside of otolaryngology or neurosurgery. Conclusions  Authors from many countries disseminate their work through poster and oral presentations at the NASBS annual meeting. Ten percent of abstracts were the product of international collaboration. Most authors were affiliated with a neurosurgery or otolaryngology department.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

"The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

Neuro-oncology authorship trends in gender since 1944: a systematic review of 14,020 articles from five top-tier academic journals

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to compare authorship trends, by gender, in the neurosurgical oncology literature.

METHODS

Complete author listings for neurosurgical oncology articles published between 1944 and 2021 in five top neuro-oncology journals were extracted from the PubMed database and journal websites on December 2, 2021. Author gender was characterized with the web application programming interface (API) genderize.io. The statistical significance (p < 0.05) of time-, journal-, and gender-based differences was determined by independent-samples t-test, chi-square test, and/or Fisher’s exact test.

RESULTS

A total of 14,020 articles were written by 67,115 unique authors occupying 97,418 authorship spots. The gender for 80,030 authorship positions (82.2%) was successfully characterized. Male authors were significantly more likely than the female authors to have a first-author publication, have a last-author publication, and have authored multiple articles within the data set. Among authors who published in multiple different years (n = 11,532), women had a shorter time window of publishing (5.46 vs 6.75 years between first and last publication: mean difference [MD] 1.28 [95% CI 1.06–1.50] years, p < 0.001). During this window, however, they were slightly more productive than the men, based on the mean number of publications per year (1.06 vs 1.01 articles: MD 0.05 [95% CI 0.02–0.09] articles, p = 0.002). The percentage of female authors on each neuro-oncology research team has increased by 3.3% (95% CI 2.6%–3.9%) per decade to a mean of 26.5% in the 2020s. Having a female last author was positively associated with having a female first author (OR 2.57 [95% CI 2.29–2.89]) and a higher proportion of women on the research team overall. The percentages of female first and last authors increased at significantly higher rates in medically oriented journals than in surgically oriented journals (first authors: 0.72% [95% CI 0.58%–0.87%] vs 0.36% [95% CI 0.30%–0.42%] per year, p < 0.001; and last authors: 0.50% [95% CI 0.38%–0.62%] vs −0.03% [95% CI −0.10% to 0.05%] per year, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female authorship in top neuro-oncology journals has increased since the 1940s, with female-led teams showing greater gender diversity. However, female researchers lag behind their male counterparts in quantity of published research and are less likely to hold first or last authorship positions. This difference is more pronounced in the three neurosurgical oncology journals than in the two medical neuro-oncology journals, which may reflect the relatively low female representation in neurosurgery relative to medical oncology. Collectively, these trends have meaningful implications for career advancement, which is often dependent on academic productivity.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies.

[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.

Perception of health care students towards lectures as a teaching and learning method in the COVID era - A multicentric cross-sectional study from India

The sudden precipitation of the pandemic forced undergraduates to take refuge at home, deserting the campus. Consequently, the age-old classroom in person teaching-learning (T-L) method shifted and lessons had to be conducted online. In previous decades, archetypical classroom lectures survived a lot of criticism in the face of the quasi-passive nature of T-L  methodology. There are very few studies that reflect undergraduate students' perceptions of lectures. This study aimed to evaluate undergraduate students' perceptions of lectures using an online questionnaire with 13 items, which was circulated to undergraduate students of medical, physiotherapy, and nursing courses in three settings at different locations of private and public health schools. There was a total of 877 responses. The surveyed students were in favor of lectures and considered them indispensable for undergraduate learning. They preferred it as a kind of organized learning through the teacher's own experiences. Our study suggests that it is not the 'lecture' that requires mending but possibly teachers require better training, application of effective audio-visual aids, and innovative techniques to sustain students' interest in the class.

Perception of health care students towards lectures as a teaching and learning method in the COVID era - A multicentric cross-sectional study from India

The sudden precipitation of the pandemic forced undergraduates to take refuge at home, deserting the campus. Consequently, the age-old classroom in person teaching-learning (T-L) method shifted and lessons had to be conducted online. In previous decades, archetypical classroom lectures survived a lot of criticism in the face of the quasi-passive nature of T-L  methodology. There are very few studies that reflect undergraduate students' perceptions of lectures. This study aimed to evaluate undergraduate students' perceptions of lectures using an online questionnaire with 13 items, which was circulated to undergraduate students of medical, physiotherapy, and nursing courses in three settings at different locations of private and public health schools. There was a total of 877 responses. The surveyed students were in favor of lectures and considered them indispensable for undergraduate learning. They preferred it as a kind of organized learning through the teacher's own experiences. Our study suggests that it is not the 'lecture' that requires mending but possibly teachers require better training, application of effective audio-visual aids, and innovative techniques to sustain students' interest in the class.

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals

BACKGROUND

Many biomedical journals follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations and criteria for authorship. ICMJE criterion 1 provides the basis for selecting authors according to their substantial contributions to the work reported in the publication. Identifying substantial contributions and their application for author selection can be challenging, especially for multicenter studies with large numbers of investigators and contributors. Contributions are not frequently documented during study conduct and authorship decisions may lack transparency, objectivity, and context.

METHODS

The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Authorship Task Force surveyed members on authorship practices, reviewed the literature defining substantial contributions to ICMJE criterion 1, and assessed existing tools or algorithms for determining authorship in industry-sponsored research. Contributions were categorized under the four sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1: study concept and design, acquisition of data, data analysis, and data interpretation.

RESULTS

Survey findings and literature review confirmed the need for clear and consistent interpretation, application, and documentation of ICMJE criterion 1 for transparent decisions about authorship. The Task Force reached consensus on definitions of substantial contributions to be considered when selecting authors of industry-sponsored research. The subsequent recommendations were grouped according to the sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1. In addition, the Task Force developed recommendations regarding contributions that do not merit authorship designation.

CONCLUSIONS

The Task Force recommendations for objective and consistent interpretation of ICMJE criterion 1 will facilitate an author selection process grounded in the core principles of substantial intellectual contribution to the work's conception or design, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. While these recommendations are focused on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research, they may be applicable to publications in other areas of scientific and biomedical research.

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research

BACKGROUND

Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.

METHODS

Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau² and Chi² tests and I² to quantify inconsistency.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts

Introduction: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals.

Methods: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed.

Results: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author’s specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor’s demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.

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.

No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications

Authorship is the currency of an academic career. Scientific publications have significant academic and financial implications. Several standard authorship guidelines exist, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is the most popular amongst them. There are increasing concerns about the ethics of publications with the rise of inappropriate authorship. The most important reason appears to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the authorship guidelines and what actions constitute unethical behaviors. There is a need to incorporate standard guidelines in medical curricula and conduct structured training and education programs for researchers across the board. The current perspective describes the significant concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship, and the possible measures being formulated to shape the future of authorship.

Authorship in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Background and Objective

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be offered based on fulfilling four criteria. Honorary authorship (HA) is a term used for authors enlisted who did not fulfill these criteria. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of HA in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Material and Methods

In 2020, a twenty-two question survey was sent to corresponding authors of four high-impact journals in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The survey covered (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines and decision-making of authorship, and (3) honorary authorship.

Results

The response rate was 24.8%. Of the respondents, 81.1% was aware of the issue of guidelines on authorship, while 56.3% was aware of the issue of HA. Yet, 15.5% of the respondents felt that one or more of their co-authors did not deserve authorship based on the ICMJE-guidelines.

Conclusion

Based on the estimated proportions of HA, attempts should be made by universities, medical journals and individual researchers to further reduce authorship misuse.