Honorary and ghost authorship in reports of randomised clinical trials in oncology

Napoleone, Marc; Krzyzanowska, Monika K.; Alibhai, Shabbir M.H.; Chan, An‐Wen; Ocaña, Alberto; Templeton, Arnoud J.; Šeruga, Boštjan; Amir, Eitan; Tannock, Ian F.

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.023

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Our findings corroborate the results of a recent survey of established HPE researchers, 13 and it seems we are not alone in these practices. [24][25][26] For example, a 2008 study of six high-impact medical journals found that 17.6% of corresponding authors admitted to including honorary authors. 24 In a separate survey of radiology researchers, 58.9% of respondents reported that they had written a paper with a co-author whose contributions did not merit authorship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

Artino

Maggio

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas scientific misconduct, like data fabrication, is clearly irresponsible and unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers. MethodIn 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 QRP items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in various forms of scientific misconduct. The items were adapted from two previously published surveys. ResultsIn total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD=11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported QRPs were adding authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying available for use under a CC0 license.peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online 3 results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP. ConclusionsNotwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of QRPs. In light of these results, reforms are needed to improve the credibility and integrity of the HPE research enterprise.available for use under a CC0 license.peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online 4 "Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not."-Nicholas H. Steneck, 2006 1 The responsible conduct of research is the foundation of sound scientific practice.1,2The need to conduct research in a responsible manner is self-evident-if science is to inform our understanding of how the world works, it must be done in an honest, accurate, and unbiased way. peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also madeThe copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

Artino

Maggio

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study suggests that many authors do not substantially participate in the design, analysis or writing of publications that carry their name. This leaves us with the question as to what extent authorship is honorary or simply a reward for enrolling patients in a clinical trial, or meant to give the study and the product credibility through the inclusion of ‘thought leaders’ as authors . It is highly likely many ‘authors’ do not meet the criteria put forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (Appendix).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Whoever has will be given more’ (Matthew 13:12): authorship of systematic reviews and clinical trials in the biological age

Stern

2017

Br J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, omitting individuals from the author list may reflect efforts to hide financial or sponsorship arrangements with private companies (Resnik et al., ). It is common for medical writers to be employed by sponsors to contribute to the preparation of manuscripts (ghost authors), although they are rarely listed as authors (Vera‐Badillo et al., ). This is particularly prevalent in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sponsored by pharmaceutical companies (Vera‐Badillo et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is common for medical writers to be employed by sponsors to contribute to the preparation of manuscripts (ghost authors), although they are rarely listed as authors (Vera‐Badillo et al., ). This is particularly prevalent in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sponsored by pharmaceutical companies (Vera‐Badillo et al., ). Neither of these authorship practices meet the publication criteria of the ICMJE.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the vexed issue of authorship and author order: A discussion paper

McCann

Polacsek

2018

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Honorary and ghost authorship in reports of randomised clinical trials in oncology

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

‘Whoever has will be given more’ (Matthew 13:12): authorship of systematic reviews and clinical trials in the biological age

Addressing the vexed issue of authorship and author order: A discussion paper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About