Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors

Abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were ‘very familiar’ with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’ encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.

Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles

“…13,14 Publication volume is important especially as first, last (i.e., senior), or corresponding 2 author. 18 Articles in high impact journals, editorials, and reviews are especially valued. Using a dataset connecting researchers' U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding histories to their publication records, Lerchenmueller and Sorenson estimated up to 60% of the gender gap in funding rate for women was due to fewer articles and citations.…”

“…Publication volume is important especially as first, last (i.e., senior), or corresponding 2 author 18 . Articles in high impact journals, editorials, and reviews are especially valued.…”

Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations

“…Unethical authorship practices are widespread (Martinson et al, 2005), with unfair authorship allocation including 'omissions of names of contributors, inappropriate listing order of authors and gift authorship' (Okonta & Rossouw, 2013, p. 5). 'Gift' or 'honorary' authorship sees senior and usually powerful individuals added to research publications by dint of their ostensible, rather than active or meaningful, involvement (Baskin & Gross, 2011;Schroter et al, 2020). Authorship 'gaming', where rankings, citations and h-indexes are manipulated to increase readership, prestige and influence, are symptomatic of the academic inequities that underlie such poor practice (see Chapman et al, 2019;Marušić et al, 2011).…”

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

“…There are reporting guidelines for authorship or contributorship implemented by academic journals and researchers [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ], but there is so far no publication or manuscript reporting format specific to international partnerships. There is also no standardised data collection methodology aimed at interrogating or facilitating the equity of such collaborations.…”