For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
58
views
31
references
 Top references
cited by
30
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares
      289
      similar
       All similar

      International Journal of Nanomedicine (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on the application of nanotechnology in diagnostics, therapeutics, and drug delivery systems throughout the biomedical field. Sign up for email alerts here.

      105,621 Monthly downloads/views I 7.033 Impact Factor I 10.9 CiteScore I 1.22 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 1.032 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care.

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey

          Joseph S Wislar, Annette Flanagin, Phil Fontanarosa … (2011)
          Objectives To assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996. Design Cross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire. Setting International survey of journal authors. Participants Sample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Main outcome measures Self reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles. Results A total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P=0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P=0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P=0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials. Conclusions Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.
          Article 0 comments Cited 134 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines

            Ana Marušić, Lana Bošnjak, Ana Jerončić (2011)
            Background The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. Methods We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. Results The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. Interpretation High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.
            Article 0 comments Cited 114 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An overview of the integrative research review.

              Cynthia L Russell (2005)
              The integrative literature review has many benefits to the scholarly reviewer, including evaluating the strength of the scientific evidence, identifying gaps in current research, identifying the need for future research, bridging between related areas of work, identifying central issues in an area, generating a research question, identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework, and exploring which research methods have been used successfully. The 5-stage integrative review process includes (1) problem formulation, (2) data collection or literature search, (3) evaluation of data, (4) data analysis, and (5) interpretation and presentation of results. Maintaining scientific integrity while conducting an integrative research review involves careful consideration to threats to validity. Strategies to overcome these threats are reviewed. The integrative review methodology must involve detailed and thoughtful work, the outcome of which can be a significant contribution to a particular body of knowledge and, consequently, to practice and research.
              Article 0 comments Cited 45 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Nanomedicine
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Nanomedicine
                Journal ID (publisher-id): International Journal of Nanomedicine
                Title: International Journal of Nanomedicine
                Publisher: Dove Medical Press
                ISSN (Print): 1176-9114
                ISSN (Electronic): 1178-2013
                Publication date Collection: 2015
                Publication date (Electronic): 30 July 2015
                Volume: 10
                Pages: 4837-4846
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Alexandria, New South Wales, Australia
                [2 ]School of Nursing, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
                [3 ]Brain and Mind Centre and Westmead Psychotherapy Program, Discipline of Psychiatry, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [4 ]Sydney West and Greater Southern Psychiatry Training Network, Cumberland Hospital, Western Sydney Local Health District, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia
                [5 ]Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [6 ]Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, Sydney Medical School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [7 ]Royal North Shore Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Rachel Anne Kornhaber, Faculty of Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 5052, Alexandria, New South Wales, Australia, Tel +61 2 8572 7969, Email rachel.kornhaber@ 123456utas.edu.au
                Article
                Publisher ID: ijn-10-4837
                DOI: 10.2147/IJN.S87585
                PMC ID: 4525802
                PubMed ID: 26257520
                SO-VID: 1dec38fa-47a1-44c5-acf9-b7f0107befb9
                Copyright © © 2015 Kornhaber et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License
                License:

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Molecular medicine
                Keywords: authorship,bioethics,equal credit,ghost,honorary,icmje
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Molecular medicine
                Keywords: authorship, bioethics, equal credit, ghost, honorary, icmje

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content289

                See all similar

                Cited by28

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors231

                See all reference authors