Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
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.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Purpose To quantify the potential effect of geographic factors on the frequency of honorary authorship in four major radiology journals. Materials and Methods In this institutional review board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of all original research articles published in American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2009 through June 2011). Questions addressed guidelines used for determining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ(2) tests. Multiple-variable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship. Results Of 1398 first authors, 328 (23.5%) responded. Of these, 91 (27.7%) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship, and 165 (50.3%) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. The perception of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P ≤ .0001) among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America and in institutions where a section or department head was automatically listed as coauthor. A significantly lower (P ≤ .0001) perception of honorary authorship was associated with adherence to ICMJE criteria and with policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics. Conclusion Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America. Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guidelines and policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics. © RSNA, 2013 Online supplemental material is available for this article.Radiology 11/2013; · 6.21 Impact Factor
- [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; · 2.18 Impact Factor
Article: Commentary: Honorary Authorship.[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This issue of the Archives includes a paper by Rajasekaran and colleagues that addresses the persistent, difficult and unsettled issue of unwarranted authorship as it applies to physical medicine and rehabilitation. The findings that it exists and that its frequency is similar to the 25-50% rates reported in other medical specialities is discouraging but, unfortunately, not surprising. They do, however, warrant discussion. This commentary attempts to do so and begins with a review of Rajasekaran and colleagues findings. It then proceeds to compare them with other work in the literature and concludes with a discussion of first why unwarranted authorship matters; second if it matters, why does it matter and; finally what we as authors, editors and the publishing world can do about it. Our goal is to give us all an improved understanding of the situation as well a little more backbone when dealing with the social pressures associated with both overt and covert suggestions for the inclusion of authors that we may believe feel unwarranted.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 11/2013; · 2.18 Impact Factor