Who should merit co-authorship? An analysis of honorary authorships in leading spine dedicated journals

Gadjradj, Pravesh S.; Peul, Wilco C.; Jalimsing, Mamta; Sharma, Jamie R J Arjun; Verhemel, Alex; Harhangi, Biswadjiet S.

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.08.008

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current prevalence found, is similar to the prevalence found in 1996 suggesting a steady state of persisting HA in the gynecological field (Flanagin et al 1998). Nevertheless, when compared to other contemporary evaluations of HA in disciplines such as plastic surgery, neurosurgery, dermatology, radiology and spine surgery, the current prevalence of 11.2% could be deemed relatively low, yet alarming (Reinisch et al 2013;Eisenberg et al 2018;Gadjradj et al 2018;Kayapa et al 2018;Gadjradj et al 2019).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…This study has some limitations which have to be acknowledged such as its retrospective character and a response rate of 28.6%. Our response rate, however, is comparable to those of similar online surveys and the significance of the response rate in regard to the quality of a survey is subject for debate (Groves and Peytcheva 2008;Johnson and Wislar 2012;Kayapa et al 2018;Gadjradj et al 2019). In more than two decades, the prevalence of HA seems to persist in the gynecological literature.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Honorary authorships in leading gynecological literature

Chidi

Meppelder

Ham

et al. 2019

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Honorary authorships in leading gynecological literature

Chidi

Meppelder

Ham

et al. 2019

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No major differences seem to exist in the frequency of authorship misuse across different health care fields. Authorship misuse is rather equally spread across the medical journals within radiology (from 27.7% to 50.3%) [16], general surgery (from 15.0% to 44.0%) [9], dermatology (14.3% to 41.4%) [23], spine-dedicated journals (49.1%) [24], and nursing (42%) [25].…”

Section: How Widely Is Authorship Misuse Spread?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

show abstract

“…Based on the literature, a questionnaire was constructed using SurveyMonkey. 4,6,15 The questionnaire consists of 22 questions, divided into four parts:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prevalence of honorary authorship (HA) in scientific publications ranges from 25% to 63% in different medical specialties. 3,4,6,7,9,15 Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that HA or 'gift authorship' is a violation of scientific integrity. Until now, the literature is scarce about the issue and prevalence of HA in orthopedic-related publications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine

Nurmohamed

Voigt²,

Awadpersad³

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To facilitate decision-making in authorship positions, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) developed a guideline that stipulates criteria authors should meet in order to merit authorship. Authors who did not meet these criteria and still enlisted as authors, are called 'honorary' authors. In this study, the prevalence and characteristics of honorary authorship (HA) is assessed in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. Methods: A survey was distributed among corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in six Orthopedics-dedicated journals. Results: 479 of the 1392 approached authors responded, leading to a response rate of 34.4%. 91.6% of the respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines, whereas 67.8% were aware of the issue of HA. Overall, the prevalence of guideline-based HA was 41.9%, while the prevalence of self-perceived HA was 14.7%. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as author on the departments, was associated with a higher rate of guideline-based HA (OR 5.03) and self-perceived HA (OR 3.31). Conclusions: The prevalence of HA in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine is high, but comparable to other medical fields. Transparency in authorship decision-making is crucial to maintain liability in scientific articles.

show abstract

Who should merit co-authorship? An analysis of honorary authorships in leading spine dedicated journals

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Honorary authorships in leading gynecological literature

Honorary authorships in leading gynecological literature

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About