The Centrality of Trust in Academic Publishing Lies with the Corresponding Author

To the Editor: I have followed, with great interest, the passionate debate held between Lichtman, and Ashkenazi and Olsha in Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. Lichtman put forward a curious and enlightening proposal to offer a fractional value to each author, depending on the value of their relative contribution, with the total amounting to 1, as a way to reduce authorship abuses, such as gift or guest authorship, which are two very prevalent forms of authorship abuses in academic publishing today.

Trends in women's representation as lead authors in high impact journals of lung cancer

Background

Women's participation in the clinical oncology practice has increased over the past decade. There is a need to investigate whether women's participation in academia, as reflected by publication activity, increased over the time. This study aimed to investigate trends in female authorship in top journals of lung cancer in the past ten years.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study of all original research and review articles published in lung cancer journals including New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet journals, JAMA journals, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Cancer Discovery, Journal of Thoracic Oncology, and Translational Lung Cancer Research (TLCR) between 2012 and 2021, the sex composition of lead authors were analyzed. The sex of the author was confirmed by internet searching for photographs, biographies, and gender-specific pronouns from journal or personal websites. The time-trend of female authorship was determined using Join-Point Regression (JPR) analysis.

Results

A total of 3,625 first authors and 3,612 corresponding authors were identified in the journals during the years studied. The sex of the author was revealed for 98.5%. Among 3,625 first authors with the sex being revealed, 1,224 (33.7%) were women. The proportion of female first authors increased remarkably from 29.4% in 2012 to 39.8% in 2021. The annual percentage change (APC) in female first authorship took place in 2019 [APC for 2019-2021, 37.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 18.0-59.1, P=0.003]. The proportion of first authors in TLCR increased from 25.9% in 2012 to 42.8% in 2021 and showed the greatest rise in female first authorship. There were significant discrepancies in the female first authorship across the journals and regions. Among the 3,612 corresponding authors whose sex were determined, 884 (24.5%) were female. There is no significant increasing trend in female corresponding authorship.

Conclusions

The sex gap in the first authorship of lung cancer research articles has improved markedly in the recent years, however, sex imparities persist especially in corresponding authorship. There is an urgent need to proactively support and promote women in taking the leadership roles, thereby increasing their contributions to and influence on the development or advancement for future healthcare policies and practices.

Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index

Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a  measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.

Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the "senior" author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally.