[PDF] Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey | Semantic Scholar (2024)

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 and hopes to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorships among researchers in India and elsewhere.

There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals, but external pressure was greater for low impact factors than for high impact factors, and senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesyAuthorship than did first authors.

Overall authorship for 49 radiology journals across 68 years has increased markedly with no demonstrated impact from ICMJE guidelines.

Honorary authorship is relatively common in biomedical publications and researchers should comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ criteria for authorship.

Illegitimate authorship is prevalent also in low-impact, national journals and mandatory contribution statements should be considered, but education and information about existing criteria for authorship may be even more important.

HA is present throughout all journals surveyed despite endorsem*nt of the IC MJE guidelines by these same journals, suggesting the necessity for modifications to the authorship system or a contemporary revision to the ICMJE guidelines.

...

...

A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.

A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship, and the Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

The criteria for authorship of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, quoted in the instructions to authors in the BMJ, are “substantial contributions to conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data” and final approval of the version to be published.

This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support.

The nature and extent of contributions of nonfirst authors to biomedical research reported in multiauthored papers cannot reliably be discerned by authorship or order of authors.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has recommended that authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript or critical revising it; and ultimate approval of the version to be published.

Two articles in this issue of JAMA provide a glimpse of one company’s apparent misrepresentation of research data and its manipulation of clinical research articles and clinical reviews; such information and articles influence the education and clinical practice of physicians and other health professionals.

Last week's revelations questioning the scientific validity of papers in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology show how the gift can turn sour and should make researchers think hard about the responsibilities that come with putting their names on papers.

Manuscripts should be submitted online via the The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology’s online submission and peer review website (known as EES), where the corresponding author is the person who enters the manuscript details and uploads the submission files.

...

...