Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews

Mowatt, G; Shirran, Liz; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Rennie, Drummond; Flanagin, Annette; Yank, Veronica; MacLennan, Graeme; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Bero, Lisa

doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2769

Cited by 197 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we are wary about how comparable this study is with the others cited by the authors. [2][3][4] Roper and Korenstein open their article by defining guest authorship as Battribution of research article authorship to investigators not meeting standard authorship criteria,^yet fail to use standard authorship criteria in their study. They also suggest their guest authorship criteria are conservative and may underestimate the true prevalence of guest authorship.…”

Section: T O the Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration and Authorship of High-Impact Randomized Clinical Trials

Marchington¹,

Gertel²,

Hamilton

2015

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: T O the Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration and Authorship of High-Impact Randomized Clinical Trials

Marchington¹,

Gertel²,

Hamilton

2015

J GEN INTERN MED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ț Standard code of authorship should be followed (9). ț All authors must contribute substantially (5). ț Unethical claims of authorship must not be entertained (5).…”

Section: Outcome Of the Conflicts With Co-authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship conflict in Bangladesh: an exploratory study

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to explore the causes, types, and consequences of authorship conflicts among the researchers of selected research institutions in Dhaka, Bangladesh; and to suggest ways to reduce conflicts. A sample of 100 researchers was given a semi‐structured questionnaire; 45 subjects responded. The responses were confidential and anonymous. Over two‐thirds of the respondents were aware of authorship conflicts, and one‐third had actually faced conflicts with their co‐authors. Of them, four faced conflicts with their juniors, while 13 faced conflicts with their seniors or supervisors. The primary causes of such conflicts appear to be unethical claims of authorship, violation of authorship order, and deprivation of authorship. In most cases, the victims became frustrated and had to give up, and avoided a direct clash to safeguard their job. Four respondents claimed to have been victimized for raising their voice. Conflict was never resolved in seven cases. To reduce conflicts, respondents suggested that authorship should be decided before the study begins, order of authorship must be determined according to contribution, and a standard code of authorship should be followed strictly. Authorship conflicts arise among researchers mostly due to what they regard as unethical practice of their co‐authors, supervisors, and department heads in the absence of any formal authorship policy in the institutions. A standard code of authorship, sensitization of researchers to the problem through open discussions and advocacy, and formation of a grievance redress committee are suggested to minimize such conflicts. Although the sample size was small, some of the specific recommendations will be appropriate in many other cases.

show abstract

“…De plus, cette revue a révélé que nombreux manuscrits d'essais cliniques avaient essentiellement été rédigés par des employés de l'industrie alors que la paternité principale de chaque article avait été attribuée à un chercheur ayant une affiliation universitaire 1 . Une enquête a permis de déterminer que la paternité de l'oeuvre était attribuable à un prête-plume dans 13 % des articles de recherche, 10 % des articles de synthèse, 6 % des éditoriaux et 11 % des analyses systématiques Cochrane [1][2][3] . La paternité par des auteurs invités a été définie quant à elle comme « l'attribution de la paternité de l'oeuvre à une personne qui ne satisfait pas aux critères définissant un auteur d'une oeuvre littéraire » Cependant, la publication en double d'une même information dans plusieurs articles est trompeuse, car elle donne l'impression que les données sont reproductibles, donnant ainsi plus de poids aux données issues de la recherche 6 .…”

Section: Respect De La Paternité De L'oeuvre Et Intégrité Des Publicaunclassified

“…ex., un directeur de laboratoire) pour leur « soutien » apparent à un projet, même si ces personnes n'ont pas contribué à la conduite d'une étude ou à la rédaction d'un article (qu'on appelle quelques fois « auteurs honoraires ») 3 . La paternité attribuable à un auteur invité est fréquente et une enquête a permis de déterminer cette paternité dans 16 % des articles de recherche, 26 % des articles de synthèse, 21 % des éditoriaux et 41 % des analyses systématiques Cochrane [1][2][3] . La rédaction d'oeuvres attribuable à des prête-plumes ou à des auteurs invités constitue une pratique déloyale qui mine la littérature médicale et scientifique.…”

unclassified