Importance of authorship and inappropriate authorship assignment in paediatric research in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Abstract

Objective To understand the importance of authorship and authorship position, and gauge perceptions of inappropriate authorship assignment, among authors publishing paediatric research conducted in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional, mixed‐methods study using an online survey of both corresponding and randomly selected, non‐corresponding authors who published research conducted in LMICs from 2006 to 2015 in the top four paediatric journals by Eigenfactor score. We used chi‐square tests to compare responses by authors living in LMICs to authors living in high‐income countries (HICs). We analysed qualitative responses using thematic analysis. Results Of 1420 potential respondents, 19.6% (n = 279) completed the survey. 57% (n = 159) lived in LMICs and 43% (n = 120) in HICs. LMIC authors more commonly perceived first authorship as most important for their academic advancement than HIC authors (74.2% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.017), while HIC authors reported last authorship as most important (25.1% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.018). 65% (n = 181) of respondents believed that their collaborators had been inappropriately assigned authorship positions (no difference in LMIC and HIC responses) and 32.6% (n = 91) reported personally accepting inappropriate authorship positions (more common in HIC respondents, P = 0.005). In qualitative data, respondents questioned the applicability of standard authorship guidelines for collaborative research conducted in LMICs. Conclusions LMIC and HIC authors held different perceptions about the importance of authorship position. Reported inappropriate authorship assignment was common among both LMIC and HIC respondents. Alternatives to standard authorship criteria for research conducted in LMICs merit further studies.

Improving Pediatric Academic Global Health Collaborative Research and Agenda Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study

“…Questions for this study followed a survey assessing perceptions of authorship in academic global health publications. 31 At the beginning of this survey, respondents confirmed they had collaborated with investigators in countries other than their own to qualify for the survey.…”

Where there is no local author: a network bibliometric analysis of authorship parasitism among research conducted in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Though our study was not designed to assess for this, a lower prevalence of authorship parasitism in articles with expanded authorship bylines may be a manifestation of 'token authorship', which has been commonly reported in work conducted in LMICs, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. [30][31][32][33] Lastly, studies reporting research conducted in more than one sub-Saharan African country commonly exhibited authorship parasitism, which may reflect the dissipation of responsibility in reporting contributions from investigators at each site.…”

Using scientific authorship criteria as a tool for equitable inclusion in global health research

“…Reasons for non-invitation from team leadership may include perceived lack of writing or intellectual capacity 12 or lack of interest among LMIC team members, who may also undervalue scientific authorship or value it differently from HIC members. 17 This is another capacity-building opportunity, to build skills and thus justify inclusion. To ensure that those who meet criterion 1 have ample opportunity to meet criterion 2, avenues by which the latter may be fulfilled can be expanded.…”