Article

Prevalence of Honorary Coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology

Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
American Journal of Roentgenology (Impact Factor: 2.74). 06/2012; 198(6):1247-55. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.8253
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of honorary authorship in articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and to evaluate the factors that might influence the perception of honorary authorship.
Corresponding authors of 1333 Original Research articles published in AJR between 2003 and 2010 were invited by e-mail to complete a Web-based, self-administered survey. Univariable analysis of sample proportions was performed using the chi-square test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the independent factors that were associated with the probability of honorary authorship.
Responses were received from authors of 490 articles (36.8% response rate). Most respondents were aware of the authorship guidelines proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (n = 399, 81.4%) and the issue of honorary authorship (n = 353, 72.0%). Authorship was most commonly decided by the first author (n = 256, 52.2%). One hundred twenty-one authors (24.7%) perceived that one or more coauthors listed for the respective article did not make sufficient contributions. Factors most strongly associated with honorary authorship included a work environment where a senior department member was automatically listed (odds ratio [OR], 1.33), the suggestion that an honorary author should be included (OR, 5.96), and the perception that a coauthor performed only a single nonauthor task (i.e., reviewing the manuscript: OR, 1.54).
A substantial proportion of articles had evidence of honorary authorship. The rate of honorary authors was higher among authors who worked in an environment where senior members were routinely added to all manuscripts submitted for publication, authors who perceived that a coauthor listed had only reviewed the manuscript, and authors who reported that someone suggested they should include an honorary author.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos, Jul 07, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
119 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Authorship problems in scholarly journals shake the foundations of research, diminish scientific quality of papers and devalue records of citation tracking services. The 'Publish or Perish' mantra is thought to drive some instances of unfair, honorary authorship, particularly in countries of emerging scientific power. Though causes of honorary, gift, guest and ghost authorship are still ill-defined, it is possible to avoid some of these instances by improving awareness of what constitutes authorship and by adhering to the editorial policies of learned associations. This paper overviews common cases of inappropriate authorship and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers and editors of scholarly journals.
    Rheumatology International 11/2012; 33(2). DOI:10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2 · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The h-index, a bibliometric indicator that objectively characterizes the impact of an author's scholarship, is an effective tool that may be considered by academic departments for decisions related to hiring and faculty advancement. Our objective was to characterize the scholarly productivity of academic surgeons from different specialties relative to otolaryngologists. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a bibliometric database. METHODS: The h-indices of 2,429 faculty members within surgical specialties at 20 randomly selected academic institutions were calculated using the Scopus database and were examined to determine relationship with academic rank and comparison among surgical subspecialties. RESULTS: The h-index statistically increased with academic rank. Mean h-indices were as follows: assistant professor, 4.37 (range, 2.73-6.69); associate professor, 8.70 (6.53-11.02); professor, 16.44 (13.39-20.45); and chairperson, 20.79 (14.81-27.89). Mean increase between academic rank was 5.47, with the largest increase between the levels of associate professor and professor. Further examination demonstrated statistically significant increases through all academic ranks for most, but not all, individual specialties. Urologists, general surgeons, and neurosurgeons had the highest mean h-indices. CONCLUSIONS: h-indices among the different surgical specialties vary and are potentially impacted by the number of practitioners as well as research emphasis within a field. The mean h-index of academic otolaryngologists falls in the lower values for academic surgeons. Because this metric varies among different fields, it is most relevant for comparison when examining values within a field. H-indices reliably increase with increasing academic rank through professor and offer a quantifiable and objective alternative to other metrics when evaluating faculty members for academic advancement. Laryngoscope, 2013.
    The Laryngoscope 04/2013; 123(4). DOI:10.1002/lary.23951 · 2.03 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To estimate the prevalence of perceived and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defined honorary authorship, and identify factors affecting each rate in the physical medicine and rehabilitation literature. Internet-based survey. First authors of papers published in three major physical medicine and rehabilitation journals between January 2009 and December 2011 were surveyed in June and July of 2012. The reported prevalence of perceived and ICMJE defined honorary authorship were the primary outcome measures, and multiple factors were analyzed to determine if they were associated with these measures.Results: The response rate was 27.3% (248/908). The prevalence of perceived and ICMJE defined honorary authorship were 18.0% (44/244) and 55.2% (137/248), respectively. Factors associated with perceived honorary authorship in the multivariate analysis included the suggestion that an honorary author should be included (P<.0001), being a medical resident or fellow (P=.0019), listing "reviewed manuscript" as one of the non-authorship tasks (P=.0013), and the most senior author deciding the authorship order (P=.0469). Living outside of North America was independently associated with ICMJE defined honorary authorship (P=.0079) in the multivariate analysis. In the univariate analysis, indicating that the most senior author decided authorship order was significantly associated with ICMJE defined honorary authorship (P=.0003). Our results suggest honorary authorship does occur in a significant proportion of the physical medicine and rehabilitation literature. Additionally, we found several factors associated with perceived and ICMJE defined honorary authorship and a discrepancy between the two rates. Further studies with larger response rates are recommended to further explore this topic.
    Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 11/2013; 95(3). DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.024 · 2.44 Impact Factor
Show more