Guest authorship as research misconduct: definitions and possible solutions

Morreim, E. Haavi; Winer, Jeffrey C.

doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111826

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After all, it is not AI (or ChatGPT) which is under pressure to publish (Aliukonis et al, 2020), so why should AI be penalized for humans' ethical transgressions related to authorship? Finally, what if AI or ChatGPT is 'caught' engaging in honorary authorship, how can it be held ethically and legally responsible (Morreim & Winer, 2023), or does that responsibility automatically revert to its manufacturer, OpenAI in the case of ChatGPT?…”

Section: Ai-based Authorship: Does It Have Authorship Rights?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Silva

Tsigaris

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.• Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human-based authorship model.• Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.• We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.• We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

show abstract

Section: Ai-based Authorship: Does It Have Authorship Rights?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Silva

Tsigaris

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A tenuous link may be made between NMP publication preferences and the results of this review, assuming that NMP staff appear in the author list. A frequent source of contention, the possible inclusion of non-contributing persons on author lists may affect the analysis of authoring professions [57]. Nevertheless, concerted efforts have been made to quantify the academic output of NMP staff, with a focus on radiographers [58,59] and NM technologists alike [60].…”

Section: Nuclear Medicine Practitioners Expert Clinical Practice Publ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of expert clinical practice among nuclear medicine non-medical staff: a scoping review

Elliott

Pereira

Bell

et al. 2022

Nuclear Medicine Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This scoping review concerns expertclinical practice (ECP) by nuclear medicine practitioners (NMP), encompassing radiographers, technologists and nurses. ECP is typically demonstrated by clinical skills with higher levels of autonomy and responsibility traditionally fulfilled by physicians. The Advanced Clinical Practice (ACP) framework by Health Education England (2017) specifies ECP as one aspect of advanced role progression. This scoping review aims to identify and categorise the extent and type of the existing NMP ECP evidence to support the establishment of Nuclear Medicine ACP.Methods PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Ovid Medline were searched for peer-reviewed literature published between 2001 and 2021 using extended and advanced practice as key terms alongside nuclear medicine and each NMP profession. Due to the sparsity of results, conference abstracts from prominent international societies were also searched. Studies were independently reviewed and graded for inclusion by four NMP. ResultsOf the 36 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 80.6% were conference abstracts and 66.7% were single-centres studies. Commonly reported NM ECP activities included image interpretation, cardiac stressing and therapies. Less reported activities include ordering complementary diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures and physical examinations. The United Kingdom presented itself at the forefront of NMP ECP publications. ConclusionThis study demonstrates evidence of NMP ECP across a variety of clinical roles. The dominance of conference abstracts highlights NMP ECP as an emerging area of role extension and a potential preference for information dissemination by NMP. Greater research into specific NMP ECP activities is required particularly studies of greater sample size and robusticity. Nucl Med Commun

show abstract

“…There are several shades of this phenomenon known as courtesy authorship. Guest authorship occurs when senior authors are included because of their respect or influence in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of publication and/or impact of the paper once published [ 2 ]; honorary authorship , instead, refers to those who are named authors merely, because they hold senior positions within the service or facility where the research occurred, and may have helped secure funding [ 3 ]. Finally, the most common one is the gift authorship which could be motivated by several reasons, including economic interests, mutual agreements between two researchers (who do not work together) to add each other to their respective lists of authors, or support your colleagues, partners or family members to favor their academic career, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of courtesy authorship in research over time has probably increased due to the enormous pressure to publish to increase the bibliometric indexes necessary to achieve an academic role. The aim of this survey was to quantify and characterize this research malpractice among a very selected group of surgeons from different surgical specialties belonging to the European Association of Surgery (ESA). E-mail addresses for the invitation to take part to the survey were collected by the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting final program. Five-item were designed and developed by the authors using an online platform. Eighty-six members from 21 countries completed the survey (female/male ratio: 0.09). In the last 10 years, almost half of the responders (41, 47.7%, 37 academics) have included colleagues for courtesy authorship. The most common reason of courtesy authorships was to support the academic career of another researcher (62.5%). Other reasons were fear of retaliation (12.5%), reciprocal authorship (12.5%) or support for a partner (10%). This survey showed that undeserved authorship is sadly confirmed to be a common research misconduct across any countries and medical specialties, even among a very selected group of surgeons with international reputation irrespective of the academic position.

show abstract

Guest authorship as research misconduct: definitions and possible solutions

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Evidence of expert clinical practice among nuclear medicine non-medical staff: a scoping review

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About