Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency?

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.

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/ .

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

[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.

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/ .

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.

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.

Honorary Authorships in the Ophthalmological Literature

Purpose

To report the prevalence of honorary authorship (HA) among different journals in the ophthalmological literature.

Methods

An online survey was conducted among corresponding authors of six journals with the highest impact factors in the ophthalmological field. The survey consists of questions regarding (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines, and (3) application of authorship guidelines on their current surveyed article. Furthermore, respondents were asked if they felt that according to their understanding of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEs) guidelines, a coauthor on their current article did not deserve authorship (perceived HA). Furthermore, respondents were asked if coauthors performed solely nonauthor tasks (ICMJE-defined HA).

Results

Out of the 1688 surveys sent, 333 were returned, leading to a response rate of 19.7%. Eighty-four and a half percent of all respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines. When deciding on order of authorship, most authors decided as a group (43.8%), followed by the senior author deciding (30.1%), and 77 articles were decided by the first author (23.4%). When asked if respondents believed that any of their coauthors did not make sufficient contributions to be included as an author, 8.8% affirmed. One hundred and thirty-one respondents stated that any of their coauthors performed only one or more nonauthor tasks, making the rate of ICMJE-defined HA 39.8%.

Conclusions

HA is present throughout all journals surveyed despite endorsement of the ICMJE guidelines by these same journals. The discrepancy between self-perceived HA and ICMJE-defined HA suggests the necessity for modifications to our authorship system or a contemporary revision to the ICMJE guidelines.

Do perceived honorary authors influence publication chance? Survey evidence from the journal of critical care

PURPOSE

Perceived Honorary Authors (PHAs) are defined as authors on manuscripts who did not contribute enough. The association between PHAs and publication chance in journals is unknown. As a start, our aim was to examine the prevalence of PHAs in the Journal of Critical Care (JCC). Furthermore, we investigated whether PHAs influences publication chance in the JCC. Also, we attempt to replicate factors associated with the prevalence of PHAs found in earlier studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2018 and March 2019, we invited 1310 corresponding authors of submissions after the final editorial decision to complete a survey. Descriptive statistics and multinomial and binary logistic regressions were used in data analysis.

RESULTS

Among the 475 respondents (response rate: 36%), we found a prevalence of PHAs of 13%. There was no significant association between PHAs and editorial decisions. Furthermore, if a senior member of the department who is automatically an author was present, our multivariate analysis showed a positive association with PHAs (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.99-7.54). However, such senior department member was not associated with the editorial decision in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of PHAs was conform other studies 13%, and did not influence publication chance.

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Honorary authorship (HA) refers to enlisted authors who did not make sufficient contributions to a paper according to the guidelines, as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This study assessed the proportion of, and factors associated with, HA in cardiothoracic surgical literature in 2017.

METHODS

Five cardiothoracic surgery journals were selected based on their impact factors in 2017 for evaluation of HA. Articles were included in the analysis if there was more than 1 listed author and if there was an available E-mail address of the corresponding author. All corresponding authors received an invitation to fill out our survey regarding their paper in 2017.

RESULTS

In total, 1511 authors opened the invitation, resulting in a total of 590 respondents (28.9%); 77.1% of all authors were aware of the ICMJE guidelines and 47.0% were aware of the general issue of HA. A total of 367 (62.7%) authors stated that at least one of the coauthors had performed solely nonauthorship tasks, whereas 148 (25.3%) authors stated that they believed that their article contained at least one honorary author. Having a senior member who was automatically included on all submitted manuscripts and not being aware of the general issue of HA were associated with significantly greater odds of having HA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that, despite the high awareness of the ICMJE guidelines, there is a large discrepancy in perceived HA and guideline-based HA. The authors plead for a better understanding and implementation of the guidelines in a more transparent authorship system.

Authorship Considerations for Publishing in Pharmacy Education Journals

The distinction of authorship and its associated credit has important implications for academia. Pharmacy education encompasses faculty members from a wide and diverse range of disciplines, including the clinical, basic, and social sciences. These disciplines embody varying traditions and perspectives concerning who qualifies for authorship. As an academy, pharmacy education must do more to equip education researchers with the tools needed to navigate authorship decisions. The following commentary provides examples and recommendations concerning the issue of authorship within pharmacy education. We define authorship, examine authorship guidelines from health professions and education disciplines, and discuss authorship order. We then provide authorship recommendations for pharmacy education with the goal of supporting authorship decisions and further promoting discourse about authorship.

Honorary Authorships in Surgical Literature

INTRODUCTION

Honorary authorship (HA) is defined as an enlisted co-author who did not make sufficient contributions to merit being included as a co-author according to the ICMJE guidelines on authorship. It is unknown if HA is present in the surgical literature.

METHODS

We analysed studies published in 2016 in five journals with the highest impact factor in general surgery. All original articles, reviews and clinical trials with more than one author were included. Corresponding authors of these manuscripts received an online survey by email. The survey consisted of three parts focussing on demographics, knowledge and application of the ICMJE guidelines, and deciding authorship.

RESULTS

In total, 320 of the 1037 surveys were completed (30.9%). Two hundred and seventy-two (88.6%) of the corresponding authors were aware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines, and 203 (66.3%) were aware of the general issue of honorary authorship. One hundred and thirty-five (44.0%) responders reported at least one co-author who only performed tasks which should not merit actual authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, only 46 (15.0%) of the responders believed that a co-author listed for their article did not make sufficient contribution to merit being included as co-author. No significant differences were found between the journals investigated.

CONCLUSION

Despite ICMJE guidelines to reduce HA, the prevalence may still exist to a higher level than preferable. The authors plead for more transparent authorship systems in which journal editors and senior department members take more responsibility into enforcement of the ICMJE guidelines.

Gift authorship: An approach to its frequency in a Peruvian journal

Introduction. Unjustified authorship or “gift authorship” is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objectives. Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results. Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions. It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of post retraction citations of articles reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method and to find if a different pattern exists between manuscripts reporting an ultrasound method and those reporting other radiology diagnostic methods. This study reviewed retractions stored in PubMed on the subject of radiology-imaging diagnosis to identify the motivation, time from publication to retraction, and citations before and after retraction. The PubMed database was searched on June 2017 to retrieve the retracted articles, and the Scopus database was screened to identify the post-retraction citations. The full text was screened to see the type of post-retraction citation (positive/negative) and whether the cited article appears or not as retracted. One hundred and two retractions were identified, representing 3.5% of the retracted articles indexed by PubMed, out of which 54 were included in the analysis. Half of the articles were retracted in the first 24 months after publication, and the number of post retraction citations was higher than the number of citations before retraction in 30 out of 54 cases (US methods: 9/20, other diagnostic methods 21/34, P-value = 0.2312). The plagiarism was the most common reason for retraction (31%), followed by repetitive publication (26%), and errors in data/manuscript (24%). In less than 2% of cases, the retracted articles appear as retracted in the text or reference list, while the negative citation is observed in 4.84% among manuscripts reporting an US diagnostic method and 0.32% among manuscripts reporting a diagnostic method other than US (P-value = 0.0004). No significant differences were observed when post retraction weighted citation index (WCI, no. of citations weighted by citation window) was compared to WCI prior retraction (P-value = 0.5972). In light of the reported results, we enumerated some recommendations that could potentially minimize the referral to retracted studies as valid.

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Objective

Studies with authors trained in research methods are of higher quality than those without. We examined inclusion of authors with master's or doctoral degrees incorporating advanced research methods training on original research articles in high-impact journals, investigating differences between journals and by first-author sex.

Methods

Using all original research articles from 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and JAMA-Internal Medicine/Archives of Internal Medicine (Archives) every alternate month, February 1994 to October 2016, we assessed the prevalence of articles listing authors with master's/doctoral research degrees and its adjusted associations with time of publication, journal, and first-author sex via multivariable logistic regression models (accounting for number of authors, study type, specialty/topic, and continent and for interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent).

Results

Of 3009 articles examined, 84.4% (n=2539) had authors listing research degrees. After adjustment, the prevalence of such articles increased from 1994 to 2016 (P<.001), but patterns differed among journals. Annals and NEJM increased to approximately100% by 2016; JAMA and Archives peaked around 2010 to 2011, then declined. Articles with female first authors were more likely to list authors with research degrees (adjusted odds ratio=1.66; 95% CI, 1.29-2.13; P<.001).

Conclusion

The prevalence of original research articles listing authors trained in research methods in high-impact journals increased significantly but is now declining at some journals, with potential effects on quality. The greater prevalence among female first-authored articles suggests possible sex differences in structuring/crediting research teams or subconscious sex bias during review.

Honorary Authorship in Radiologic Research Articles: Assessment of Pattern and Longitudinal Evolution

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the pattern and longitudinal evolution of honorary authorship in major radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of original research articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2014 through June 2016). Questions addressed the perception of honorary authorship and contributing factors, as well as demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

RESULTS

Of 1839 first authors, 315 (17.3%) responded. Of these, 31.4% (97/309) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship and 54.3% (159/293) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria. Of eight factors significantly associated with the perception of honorary authorship on univariate analysis, two were retained by the stepwise multivariate model: having someone suggest adding an author and a coauthor performing only a nonauthorship task.

CONCLUSION

There has been little variation in the perception of honorary authorship among first authors of original research articles in radiology. The suggestion of adding an author and having coauthors performing only nonauthorship tasks are the two most important risk factors for honorary authorship. Our findings indicate that a prolonged course of transformation of current cultural norms is required to decrease honorary authorship.

Misuse of Coauthorship in Medical Theses in Sweden

The aim of this study was to explore experiences of authorship issues among persons who have recently received their doctoral degree in medicine in Sweden. A survey was mailed to all who received their PhD at a medical faculty at a Swedish university the first half of 2016. Questions concerned experiences of violations of the first three authorship criteria in the Vancouver rules and of misuse of authorship order in the articles of their thesis, and the respondents' attitudes to these matters. The questionnaire was returned by 285 respondents (68%). According to the majority (53%), the Vancouver rules were not fully respected in the articles of their thesis. A vast majority (97%) found it important that authorship issues are handled correctly, but only 19% responded that their department has a clear and consistently applied policy. We conclude that authorship guidelines are frequently disrespected at medical faculties in Sweden. The universities seem to provide limited support on authorship issues.

Frequency and Factors Associated With Honorary Authorship in Indian Biomedical Journals: Analysis of Papers Published From 2012 to 2013

Honorary authorship is the inclusion of an author on an article whose contribution does not warrant authorship. We conducted an Internet-based survey among first authors publishing in Indian biomedical journals from 2012 to 2013 to study the frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship. The response rate was 27% (245/908) with the prevalence of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined, and unperceived honorary authorship of 20.9% (50/239), 60% (147/245), and 46.9% (115/245), respectively. Those residing in India were found to list more honorary authors. We hope to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorship among researchers in India and elsewhere.

Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.

Trends in Authorship Patterns in High-Impact Radiology Publications, 1980-2013

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Concerns have been raised about authorship inflation in medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine how the number of authors per radiology article has changed over time with regard to study type and geographic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected data on study type, authorship count, and the country of the corresponding author for a sample of articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and European Radiology in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2013. Only original research and review articles were considered. We computed trends in the mean number of authors per article for each journal and compared authorship trends between study types and geographic region. The study did not involve human subjects and was therefore exempt from institutional board review at our institution.

RESULTS

A total of 682 articles were reviewed, of which 572 were original research articles (83.9%) and 110 review articles (16.1%). The overall number of authors per article doubled from 3.6 in 1980 to 7.3 in 2013 (P < .001). From 1990 to 2013, the largest absolute increase in authorship count was in Radiology (4.4-8.1, 84.1%, P < .001). The largest increase in authorship occurred in original research articles (3.7-7.8, 111%, P < .001). Although authorship counts were greatest in Asia over most study period, growth in authorship count was highest in Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorship count has dramatically increased in radiology journals in the last 3 decades, particularly in original research articles and in Europe.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship in Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to investigate authorship trends in radiology journals, and whether International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations have had an impact on these trends. A secondary objective was to explore other variables associated with authorship trends.

METHODS

A retrospective, bibliometric analysis of 49 clinical radiology journals published from 1946-2013 was conducted. The following data was exported from MEDLINE (1946 to May 2014) for each article: authors' full name, year of publication, primary author institution information, language of publication and publication type. Microsoft Excel Visual Basics for Applications scripts were programmed to categorize extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the overall mean number of authors per article over time, impact of ICMJE guidelines, authorship frequency per journal, country of origin, article type and language of publication.

RESULTS

216,271 articles from 1946-2013 were included. A univariate analysis of the mean authorship frequency per year of all articles yielded a linear relationship between time and authorship frequency. The mean number of authors per article in 1946 (1.42) was found to have increased consistently by 0.07 authors/ article per year (R² = 0.9728, P<0.001) to 5.79 authors/article in 2013. ICMJE guideline dissemination did not have an impact on this rise in authorship frequency. There was considerable variability in mean authors per article and change over time between journals, country of origin, language of publication and article type.

CONCLUSION

Overall authorship for 49 radiology journals across 68 years has increased markedly with no demonstrated impact from ICMJE guidelines. A higher number of authors per article was seen in articles from: higher impact journals, European and Asian countries, original research type, and those journals who explicitly endorse the ICMJE guidelines.

Honorary authorship in postgraduate medical training

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether postgraduate medical trainees are exposed to honorary authorship, whether they are aware of the topic and if they believe that further support and education concerning this issue is needed.

METHODS

Postgraduate medical trainees were contacted by email with a link to our questionnaire on two occasions (2 and 26 February 2014) and then contacted in person (June-November 2014). The questionnaire topics included demographics, authorship practice beliefs and experience, and authorship policy-related questions. We also determined the proportion of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined and unperceived honorary authorship in the respondent group.

RESULTS

The response rate was 27.7%. The prevalence of perceived, ICMJE-defined and unperceived honorary authorship was 38.1%, 57.3% and 24.2%, respectively; 90.1% were unaware of the ICMJE authorship criteria, 92.6% were unaware of a support system for authorship disputes, but 91.8% believed such a system should be implemented and 93.3% believed medical trainees and faculty should be instructed on authorship guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

A paradigm shift from the current system is needed, where enforcement of ethical authorship practices is shifted away from journal editors. Instruction on the topic should be provided to medical trainees throughout medical school and continued during further training. A process should also be outlined to resolve authorship disputes. These measures may encourage researchers to have an open discussion on the topic prior to the commencement of a research project, and to resolve authorship conflicts in a constructive manner. We also hope this paper encourages further work on the topic.

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.