Have ignorance and abuse of authorship criteria decreased over the past 15 years?

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.

Réussir l’élaboration d’une liste d’auteurs d’un manuscrit scientifique

Le Réseau Maghrébin PRP2S et la Rédaction de la revue «La Tunisie Médicale» ont l’honneur de continuer d’une manière régulière, à partir du numéro de mars 2021, et pour la deuxième année successive, la série des fiches techniques en épidémiologie, en bio statistique et en rédaction médicale scientifique.

Cette série a eu un grand succès au cours de sa première année d’édition en 2020, comme indique le nombre de téléchargements dépassant significativement celui des articles originaux et illustrant un besoin très manifeste des jeunes chercheurs, au renforcement de leurs capacités en méthodologie de recherche scientifique en sciences de santé, selon une pédagogie centrée sur l’acquisition des compétences pratiques de recherche biomédicale.

En effet, nos fiches méthodologiques décrivent, d’une manière standardisée, les modes d’usage des concepts, des outils et des méthodes, utilisés d’une part lors du continuum de la recherche biomédicale scientifique, dès la phase conceptuelle jusqu’à la phase rédactionnelle et d’autre part lors des différentes phases de la rédaction médicale scientifique, depuis l’étape de la recherche documentaire jusqu’à l’étape de la communication médicale scientifique.

Cette série est rédigée par les experts du Réseau Maghrébin PRP2S, en méthodologie de recherche, exerçant dans les universités du Grand Maghreb et les facultés sœurs au Nord de la Méditerranée. Chaque fiche répond à trois questions essentielles (Quoi ? Pourquoi ? Comment) du concept étudié, en se basant sur un article publié dans la revue «La Tunisie Médicale».

Exclusion of Expert Contributors From Authorship Limits the Quality of Scientific Articles

Veterinary pathologists are key contributors to multidisciplinary biomedical research. However, they are occasionally excluded from authorship in published articles despite their substantial intellectual and data contributions. To better understand the potential origins and implications of this practice, we identified and analyzed 29 scientific publications where the contributing pathologist was excluded as an author. The amount of pathologist-generated data contributions were similar to the calculated average contributions for authors, suggesting that the amount of data contributed by the pathologist was not a valid factor for their exclusion from authorship. We then studied publications with pathologist-generated contributions to compare the effects of inclusion or exclusion of the pathologist as an author. Exclusion of the pathologist from authorship was associated with significantly lower markers of rigor and reproducibility compared to articles in which the pathologist was included as author. Although this study did not find justification for the exclusion of pathologists from authorship, potential consequences of their exclusion on data quality were readily detectable.

Pandémie à SARS-CoV-2 : éthique et intégrité oubliées devant la précipitation pour publier

Les éditeurs, propriétaires des revues scientifiques avec les sociétés savantes, ont mis en accès libre les articles traitant de la COVID-19 au sein d’un espace dédié.

Les revues médicales prestigieuses ont reçu jusqu’à une centaine de manuscrits par jour, pour en publier moins de 2 ou 3 % ; cependant, les règles de relecture par les pairs n’ont pas toujours été suivies.

Des revues ont créé de nouvelles rubriques pour alléger les standards de publication, attirer les auteurs, ou augmenter le nombre de citations.

Des manipulations des publications ont été observées.

Les revues prédatrices, pour certaines créées lors de la pandémie, ont profité de la crise sanitaire pour attirer auteurs et articles.

Les médecins ont adopté le système des prépublications, après avoir été réservés sur son utilité.

Les revues scientifiques n’ont plus la primeur des résultats des recherches.

Plagiarism in dentistry - a systematic review

Objective Following a survey of the literature, a systematic review was carried out with the aim of answering the following questions: 1) What is 'acceptable plagiarism'?; 2) Who carries out plagiarism?; 3) What factors could encourage plagiarism?; 4) How can plagiarism be managed?Data source and selection Following PRISMA guidelines, data were gathered by searching Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. After removal of duplicates, 345 titles were identified. Then, having satisfied a priori eligibility criteria, 29 papers were interrogated. The quality of relevant papers (n = 23) was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tool.Data extraction There was no clear threshold as to what is 'acceptable plagiarism'. Despite this lack of clarity, it is argued consistently that males, and those who wrote in a language that is not their mother tongue, were more likely to plagiarise.Conclusion Plagiarism is all but inescapable due to various reasons: 1) there is no agreed threshold as to what is 'acceptable plagiarism'; 2) the internet; 3) institutional; and 4) societal expectations. Plagiarism could be mitigated in the student domain by grammar support and, for example, non-written submissions such as presenting work by video. Academic fraud is fundamentally undermined by valuing original and creative scholarship and sound ethical principles.