The ethical assignment of authorship in scientific publications: issues and guidelines

Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.

And the credit goes to … - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists

The proliferation of team-authored academic work has led to the proliferation of two kinds of authorship misconduct: ghost authorship, in which contributors are not listed as authors and honorary authorship, in which non-contributors are listed as authors. Drawing on data from a survey of 2,222 social scientists from around the globe, we study the prevalence of authorship misconduct in the social sciences. Our results show that ghost and honorary authorship occur frequently here and may be driven by social scientists' misconceptions about authorship criteria. Our results show that they frequently deviate from a common point of authorship reference (the ICMJE authorship criteria). On the one hand, they tend to award authorship more broadly to more junior scholars, while on the other hand, they may withhold authorship from senior scholars if those are engaged in collaborations with junior scholars. Authorship misattribution, even if it is based on a misunderstanding of authorship criteria rather than egregious misconduct, alters academic rankings and may constitute a threat to the integrity of science. Based on our findings, we call for journals to implement contribution disclosures and to define authorship criteria more explicitly to guide and inform researchers as to what constitutes authorship in the social sciences. Our results also hold implications for research institutions, universities, and publishers to move beyond authorship-based citation and publication rankings in hiring and tenure processes and instead to focus explicitly on contributions in team-authored publications.

Ghost and Honorary Authorship in Ophthalmology: A Cross-Sectional Survey

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rates of ghost and honorary authorship in ophthalmology and to determine risk factors associated with ghost and honorary authorship.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

Corresponding authors of articles published in Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and the American Journal of Ophthalmology from June 2019 to December 2020 were emailed an electronic survey. The rates of ghost and honorary authorship, demographic characteristics of the corresponding authors with and without ghost and honorary authorship, and risk factors for ghost and honorary authorship were evaluated.

RESULTS

Corresponding authors (n = 830) were emailed a survey and 278 total responses (34.1%) were received; 227 responses (27.9%) were complete and included for analysis. Most respondents (n = 206, 90.7%) believed that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship adequately address criteria for authorship. Twenty-seven corresponding authors (11.9%) reported characteristics of their articles that indicated the presence of both ghost and honorary authorship (95% CI, 7.7%-16.1%). One hundred fifteen (50.7%) reported honorary authorship (44.2%-57.2%), and 37 (16.3%) indicated ghost authorship (11.5%-21.1%). Being a resident or fellow corresponding author increased the risk of honorary authorship (OR 11.75; 1.91-231.57; P = .03). There were no factors that predicted articles having ghost authors.

CONCLUSIONS

While many authors believe the ICMJE guidelines for authorship comprehensively delineate fair authorship practices, listing authors on scientific publications honorarily and excluding authors who qualify for authorship are relatively common practices in ophthalmological research. Further investigation into the drivers of honorary and ghost authorship practices in ophthalmology, and the effectiveness of preventive measures are needed to ensure fair authorship attributions.

Courtesy Authorship Practices Among First and Senior Authors: Evaluation of Motivations, Gender Bias, and Inequities

OBJECTIVES

A courtesy author is an individual who has not met authorship criteria but is listed as an author. This practice is common and often seen as victimless. Because publications are used for funding and promotion decisions, it is critical to understand biases in this practice.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted from March to October 2020 of first and senior authors of publications from 2014 to 2015 in 8 surgical journals. Authors were surveyed about demographic data, practice setting, and courtesy author practices.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-one authors responded (16% response rate). 75% were from academic practice settings. 14% reported adding courtesy authors 5 or more times in the past year. Courtesy authors were more often male (80%, P = 0.023), older (75%), and of higher academic rank (65%) than first/senior authors. All author groups were >75% white. When a reason was reported, 46% added a courtesy author due to avoid retaliation; 64% to avoid awkwardness. 26% expected reciprocal authorship offers. 92% of respondents acknowledge understanding International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Women were less common among those added from goodwill than those added from fear (P = 0.039.) When courtesy authors were of a lower rank than first/senior authors, they were nearly twice as likely to be female (P = 0.0056) or non-white (P = 0.0184.).

CONCLUSION

Courtesy authors were more often male, older, and higher rank than first/senior authors. Fear of career consequences was a major motivator for including courtesy authors. Understanding the motivations and pressures leading to courtesy authorship will help to correct this practice.

Courtesy Authorship in Academic Surgery Publications

Importance

Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown.

Objective

To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship.

Results

A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors.

Conclusions and Relevance

Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.

Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices

Although the authorship order on published research plays a significant role for scientific merit in many research contexts, and therefore should be handled with great care not least for the sake of fairness, the practices of accrediting authorship positions vary greatly between different research areas. This paper makes the point, by help of a current example, that changes in bibliometrics practices may make an already disparate landscape even more confusing.

Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade

Achieving a place in the authorship of published scientific research is a matter of pride and fame associated with creativity, recognition, better evaluation, and financial gains. This had made assigning of authorship in a scientific publication, a complex and challenging issue. Gaining a position in authorship in scientific publications not only prompts or encourages authors to carry out more research but also recourse many of them to the unethical practice of different kinds of authorship abuses. These authorship abuses are done so cleverly and skillfully that neither the journal editors nor the readers of the journals realize that bias had crept in authorship of the publication. This nonstandard act of biased authorship has a tremendous potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications. The present review aims in focusing on issues pertaining to authorship and its misuse in biomedical research. Thus, it can be concluded from this review that new policies, guidelines, and laws should be made by the government agencies in association with journal editors, institution, and government agencies to curb this malpractice by protecting whistleblowers and providing adequate punishment for those who are involved.

Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands

This article discusses gift authorship, the practice where co-authorship is awarded to a person who has not contributed significantly to the study. From an ethical point of view, gift authorship raises concerns about desert, fairness, honesty and transparency, and its prevalence in research is rightly considered a serious ethical concern. We argue that even though misuse of authorship is always bad, there are instances where accepting requests of gift authorship may nevertheless be the right thing to do. More specifically, we propose that researchers may find themselves in a situation much similar to the problem of dirty hands, which has been frequently discussed in political philosophy and applied ethics. The problem of dirty hands is relevant to what we call hostage authorship, where the researchers include undeserving authors unwillingly, and only because they find it unavoidable in order to accomplish a morally important research goal.

Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research

Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow.

Addressing Authorship Issues Prospectively: A Heuristic Approach

Collaborative writing in academic medicine gives rise to more richly informed scholarship, and yet challenging ethical issues surrounding authorship are commonly encountered. International guidelines on authorship help clarify whether individuals who have contributed to a completed scholarly work have been correctly included as authors, but these guidelines do not facilitate intentional and proactive authorship planning or decisions regarding authorship order.In this Commentary, the author presents a heuristic approach to help collaborators clarify, anticipate, and resolve practical and ethically important authorship issues as they engage in the process of developing manuscripts. As this approach illustrates, assignment of authorship should balance work effort and professional responsibility, reflecting the effort and intellectual contribution and the public accountability of the individuals who participate in the work. Using a heuristic approach for managing authorship issues prospectively can foster an ethical, collaborative writing process in which individuals are properly recognized for their contributions.

How Authorship is Defined by Multiple Publishing Organizations and STM Publishers

The most important part of a biomedical scientific manuscript is undeniably the research data. Yet, scientists generate and validate that data, culminating, in most cases, in a scientific manuscript. Thus, authorship, specifically the contributions and attributed responsibilities of the authors, remains a central issue in science publishing. This article examines the definitions of authorship as defined by four publishing organizations--the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)-and 15 science, technology, and medicine (STM) publishers. The objective is to understand whether there is consistency among definitions. Five of these STM publishers rely specifically on the ICMJE definitions of authorship, while 12/15 are COPE members. The clarity, logic, realism, feasibility, and enforceability of these definitions will be discussed. Our analysis reveals that authorship definitions are inconsistent among the 15 STM publishers. Scientists have the inherent right to determine who is an author of an article according to the ethical guidelines of their institutes, but these may differ from the guidelines indicated by publishers, while editors and publishers have the right to verify authorship.

Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective

Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics.

Publication among academic staff and students: an analysis from the ethical perspective

This article analyzes, from the ethical perspective, the authorship of particles carried out among students and professors and their potential conflicts. After the literature review, it has been found that the Vancouver criteria that should be fulfilled for the attribution of authorship of an article are not popularly known by students and academic staff. Many problems are posed in this area, among which the following are highlighted: ghost writer, honorary author, and incorrect assignment in the order authors should appear. The professor-student relationship brings with it implicit risks that could lead to conflict, against which it is the academician who should be cautious to curtail any ethical fault when assigning the authors. The measures recommended to avoid conflicts of authorship among students and academic staff are: early assignment of the authors, reflection among academicians, education to students/academic staff, and external control conducted by journal editors. Conclusion is that lack of awareness of the criteria of authorship by academicians and students is the principal problem in the attribution of authorships. It is indispensable to improve this knowledge and look after the application of said criteria in practice.

ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P<0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P=0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P=0.135).

CONCLUSION

Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.

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.

Bibliometric analysis of stem cell publications in iran

Objective:

The purpose of this study is to examine qualitative and quantitative states of stem cell research in Iran in order to extract information production patterns.

Methods:

The data were extracted by searching through the Science Citation Index (SCI) Expanded database related to January 2013. The number of published articles and frequency of their citation were used as indices of the quality and quantity of information production.

Results:

Total number of Iranian stem cell articles and proceedings indexed in Web of Science until 2012 was 709. The highest frequency belonged to the multiple institution category (45-50% of the articles during 2005-2012). The highest CPP rate (29.7) belonged to the international articles written by the authors from other countries with Iranian coauthors.

Conclusion:

Although cooperation between more authors from different institutions and countries can increase the quality of scientific articles, results of this research showed that international research must be distinguished in terms of author sequence.

Authorship conflicts: a study of awareness of authorship criteria among academic plastic surgeons

BACKGROUND

Authorship is an important yardstick in academic medicine. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of authorship conflicts among academic plastic surgeons and determine any change in authorship awareness over an 8-year period.

METHODS

In 2003, members of the American Association of Plastic Surgeons were surveyed using an anonymous, 15-item, one-page questionnaire. In 2011, members were resurveyed using a similar questionnaire. In both surveys, nonresponders were contacted by telephone at 2 weeks to encourage response.

RESULTS

The authors obtained a response rate of 80.4 percent (258 of 321) in 2003 and 81.6 percent (486 of 595) in 2011. In both cohorts, one-third of respondents felt that they had not been appropriately acknowledged as authors at some point during their career. Furthermore, in 2003, 29 percent of respondents admitted to being involved in a dispute with a colleague over authorship issues. This had decreased slightly to 22 percent by 2011. Interestingly, 64 percent of respondents in 2003, compared with only 37 percent of respondents in 2011, stated that they had included someone as an author who had not fulfilled any authorship criteria. In 2003, only 16 percent of respondents were aware of any journal authorship criteria. This had increased to 59 percent by 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found an increase in awareness of authorship criteria among academic plastic surgeons in 2011 compared with those in 2003. In addition, academic plastic surgeons surveyed more recently reported more rigorous justification for including individuals as authors, supporting a trend toward increasing transparency and accountability.

Authorship and Characteristics of Articles in Pharmacy Journals: Changes Over a 20-Year Interval

Background:

To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated authorship patterns and characteristics of articles in pharmacy journals,

Objective:

To investigate changes over a 20-year period in authorship and characteristics of articles in pharmacy journals.

Methods:

All articles published in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, and Pharmacotherapy in 1989, 1999, and 2009 were reviewed. Data collected for each article included article type, number of authors, number of physician authors, whether any author was affiliated with a pharmaceutical company, and source of funding.

Results:

The number of articles included was 574 in 1989, 659 in 1999, and 589 in 2009. The mean number of authors per article increased from 2.5 in 1989 to 2.8 in 1999 and 3.6 in 2009 (p< 0.001). Conversely, the proportion of articles with a single author decreased from 35% in 1989 to 23% in 1999 and 11 % in 2009 (p < 0.001), while the proportion of multi-authored articles (>6 authors) increased from 2% in 1989 to 3% in 1999 and 9% in 2009 (p < 0.001). A physician author was listed on 25% of papers in 1989, which increased to 38% in 1999 and 41% in 2009 (p < 0.001). Among research articles with declared funding from industry, there was an increase over time in reported author affiliation with an industry sponsor (10% of articles in 1989, 17% in 1999, and 66% in 2009; p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Significant changes in authorship patterns and characteristics of articles were observed from 1989 to 2009. We found an increase in the number of authors per article over time, with fewer single-author papers now published. The explanations for the changes are likely multifactorial, including increased pressure to publish, increased research complexity, and inappropriate authorship. To prevent inappropriate author-number inflation and to preserve authorship's meaning and value, authors should adhere to the criteria for authorship from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.