No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Authorship and Contributorship
Abstract
Authorship should be considered if one has made substantial contributions to the conception, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, drafted or revised the work, approved the final manuscript, and willingness to take responsibility (ICMJE criteria).Authorship is attractive as it helps in professional growth and leads to respect from the peers. It also makes people susceptible to potential malpractices to get authorship.Authorship comes with important responsibilities like honesty, transparency, and ensuring originality of work.The sequence of authors is decided by quantum and importance of their contributions.An individual having a role in the research is eligible to be considered as a contributor. The role of all contributors must be mentioned in the publication.People helping only in data collection, performing statistics, technical contributions, and data entry, or those who have obtained grants or head of the department should be all acknowledged but cannot be considered as authors unless they fulfill the ICMJE criteria.Gift authorship or honorary authorship is to bestow authorship upon an individual when that individual does not fulfill the criteria for authorship.Ghost authorship is the absence of the name of an individual as an author, despite making a substantial contribution to the article and fulfilling ICMJE criteria. It is especially prevalent in industry-initiated or industry-sponsored trials.Plagiarism is an act of using another person’s words or ideas without giving credit to that person and is common in medical literature. Anti-plagiarism software are now available to check this menace at least partially.
Buku ini mencoba mengajak Anda memulai diri untuk menulis dengan
beberapa strategi yang ditawarkan. Apa pentingnya publikasi?Seberapa penting hubungan penelitian dan publikasi? Beberapa istilah penting yang dimaknai terkait isu etika juga ditawarkan, seperti fabrikasi, falsifikasi, self-plagiarism, salami publishing (salami slicing), publikasi ganda, dan isu etika lain.
Anda juga dapat menemukan contoh-contoh konkret menulis setiap bagian artikel, contoh berkomunikasi dengan editor, contoh cover letter, contoh tittle page, dan beberapa contoh lampiran yang harus dipersiapkan. Anda juga dapat menemukan visualisasi algoritma dari pengiriman manuskrip hingga siap terbit. Anda juga dapat menemukan beberapa sampel jurnal bereputasi pilihan dan beberapa sampel jurnal yang patut untuk dipikirkan kembali sebelum mengirim ke jurnal-jurnal tersebut. Dengan demikian, diharapkan dengan buku ini dapat memperluas dan memperdalam wawasan, pengetahuan dan keterampilan dalam menulis artikel dan mempublikasikannya.
Authorship is a highly sought attribute, as it is associated with recognition for creativity. In addition, it is associated with multiple benefits such as peer recognition, better evaluation and financial gains. These possibilities spur scientists to author articles, but some take recourse to unethical practice of honorary authorships. Another unethical practice is that of ghostwriting. It is a phenomenon wherein individuals who write the articles are not named as authors and are not even acknowledged to be associated with the manuscript. Reputed and renowned scientists, who have not participated in the conduct of the study or in the manuscript preparation, are enrolled by the industry to allow their names to be mentioned as authors. This phenomenon is harmful not only because it suppresses the contribution of ghost-authors but also because the guest "authors" bestow underserved credibility upon an "industry-written" paper. The readers have no way of knowing the bias that may have crept in. The journal editors, institution, and government agencies need to come together to ensure that these malpractices are curbed by employing various measures such as creating awareness amongst authors, academicians, and administrators; enunciating and implementing policies to dissuade unethical behavior, protecting whistle-blowers, and providing punishments to those indulging in malpractices. All of us should remember that if unchecked, these deviant behaviors have the potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications.
To assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996.
Cross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire.
International survey of journal authors.
Sample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine.
Self reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles.
A total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P = 0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P = 0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P = 0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials.
Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.
Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited.
To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation.
Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey.
A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology).
Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors.
Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (1 9%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88).
A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.
To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute.
Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors.
One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%).
A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.
Ghost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is not known.
We conducted a cohort study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994-1995. We defined ghost authorship as present if individuals who wrote the trial protocol, performed the statistical analyses, or wrote the manuscript, were not listed as authors of the publication, or as members of a study group or writing committee, or in an acknowledgment. We identified 44 industry-initiated trials. We did not find any trial protocol or publication that stated explicitly that the clinical study report or the manuscript was to be written or was written by the clinical investigators, and none of the protocols stated that clinical investigators were to be involved with data analysis. We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%-87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%-98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. It is likely that we have overlooked some ghost authors, as we had very limited information to identify the possible omission of other individuals who would have qualified as authors.
Ghost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.
Journals have increased disclosure requirements in recent years, in part to deter guest authorship. The prevalence of guest authorship among primary authors (first and last) in the current era of increased disclosure requirements is unknown.
Our aim was to examine the self-reported prevalence of guest authorship among primary authors from a sample of randomized clinical trials with and without industry funding and industry collaboration in the design, analysis or reporting of trials.
Cross-sectional analysis of randomized, drug/device clinical trials with published details on the "Role of the Funding Source/Sponsor" published in high-impact biomedical journals between 1 December 2011 and 31 November 2012. Phase 1 or 2 trials, secondary trial analyses, and trials that were not listed on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Primary guest authorship was defined, based on International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria, when neither the first nor last author contributed to either of the following: 1) the design of the trial or the analysis/interpretation of data; or 2) drafting part or all of the manuscript.
One hundred and sixty-eight randomized clinical trials that met inclusion criteria were included.
We measured differences in the prevalence of guest authorship between trials with neither industry funding nor collaboration and 1) trials with industry funding without collaboration, and 2) trials with industry funding with collaboration.
The overall prevalence of primary guest authorship was 6 % (10/168). Primary guest authorship was significantly more common in trials with industry funding with collaboration than in those with neither industry funding nor collaboration [13.2 % (10/76) vs. 0 % (0/39); p < 0.02]. Primary guest authorship did not differ between trials with industry funding without collaboration and trials with neither industry funding nor collaboration.
Among a sample of randomized, drug/device clinical trials in high-impact biomedical journals, primary guest authorship was overall uncommon and occurred exclusively among trials with industry funding with collaboration.
Over half of the major papers published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) have five or more coauthors. This project was designed to evaluate the specific contributions of coauthors and the prevalence of undeserved authorship in major papers from institutions in the United States.
Questionnaires were mailed to the first author of 275 major papers from institutions in the United States that were published in the AJR in 1992 and 1993. Questions focused on coauthors' contributions to research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, and on undeserving authorship.
One hundred ninety-six (72%) of the surveys were returned. Ninety-nine percent of first authors, 75% of second authors, fewer than half of third authors, and one third of fourth authors and beyond were said to have contributed to at least three of the following: research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation (p < .02). A strong correlation was indicated between authorship position and contribution (r = -.69, p < .001), with a mean overall contribution of 63 +/- 17% (mean +/- SD) for the first author, 20 +/- 12% for the second author, 10 +/- 7% for the third author, 7 +/- 6% for the fourth author, and 5 +/- 5% for all other authors. Coauthors were listed in decreasing order of contribution in 70% of articles. However, the last author was the second major contributor in 10% of articles with three or more authors. The incidence of "undeserved" coauthors increased from 9% on papers with three authors to 30% on papers with more than six authors (mean, 17%; r = .97; p < .001). Undeserved authorship was attributed largely to individuals who contributed only cases (29%) or who created a sense of obligation or fear in the first author (40%). Manuscripts were more likely to include an undeserved coauthor when the first author was a nontenured staff member (45%) than when he or she was tenured faculty (28%) (p < .02). When decision about authorship were made at project conception, there were fewer coauthors (3.9 versus 5.4, p < .02) and a lower incidence of manuscripts with undeserving coauthors (23% versus 47%, p < .01). The final manuscript was read by all coauthors in 80% of manuscripts, and all coauthors were thought to understand the manuscript to the extent they could publicly defend it in 78% of manuscripts. The most commonly cited reason that otherwise honest individuals accept undeserved authorship was academic promotion.
Undeserved authorship is a common and serious problem that is motivated primarily by academic promotion policies. The first two authors are said to account for the preponderance of work in almost all major papers.
Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
- Recommendations For
- Conduct
- Reporting
The ethics of authorship: authorship by prior agreement -principles and pitfalls
- M Gottesman
Gottesman M. The ethics of authorship: authorship by prior agreement -principles and pitfalls. Science. March 30, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/03/ethics-authorshipauthorship-prior-agreement-principles-and-pitfalls Accessed 5 Sept 2016.