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

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

Purpose

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.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

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.

0 comments Cited 144 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.

John Lundberg, A Flanagin, Mariko L Carey … (1998)

Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation. Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey. A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors. Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (1 9%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88). A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.

0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Patterns and trends of medical student research

Dakshitha Wickramasinghe, Chamila Perera, Supun Senarathna … (2013)

Background Our study describes the change in the research output, trends and content of published research involving medical students over the last century. Methods Pubmed® and Scopus® were searched for keywords ‘Medical Student’ in the affiliation field. The search results were combined in Endnote® and duplicate entries removed and the multiple variables described below were assessed. Results The combined searches after excluding duplicates yielded 416 results and 66 articles were excluded. There was an exponential increase in medical student research from 1980–2010. Medical student was the first author in 170 (48.6%) studies and 55 studies were authored by a single medical student. The 3 most common areas of research in descending order were Psychiatry (n = 26, 7.4%), General Medicine (n = 24, 6.9%) and Medical Education (n = 21, 6%). The commonest type of articles, in descending order were review articles (n = 48, 13.7%), Cross sectional studies (n = 47, 13.4%) and Case reports (n = 43, 12.3. The majority of these articles (n = 207, 59.1%) have never been cited subsequently. The trend of increasing number of articles was seen equally among all article types, fields and countries. Conclusions There is an exponential increase in articles by medical students but the majority of articles have not been cited. The numbers of medical student authors per publication have remained static while the total numbers of authors have increased. The proportions in the type of articles, fields of study and country of origin have largely remained static. Publishers and authors should strive to enhance the quality and quantity of data available in indexing services.

0 comments Cited 29 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Pravesh S. Gadjradj

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Clin Orthop Trauma

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J Clin Orthop Trauma

Title: Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma

Publisher: Elsevier

ISSN (Print): 0976-5662

ISSN (Electronic): 2213-3445

Publication date Collection: October 2021

Publication date (Electronic): 28 July 2021

Volume: 21

Electronic Location Identifier: 101531

Affiliations

[a ]Faculty of Medicine, Utrecht University Medical Center, the Netherlands

[b ]Department of Neurosurgery, Park MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Author notes

[∗ ]Corresponding author. Department of Neurosurgery, Park MC Hoofdweg 90, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. p.gadjradj@ 123456erasmusmc.nl

Article

Publisher Item ID: S0976-5662(21)00415-X Publisher ID: 101531

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101531

PMC ID: 8348525

PubMed ID: 34405087

SO-VID: 96fbaa07-899d-4172-902f-3f0939361176

License:

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

History

Date received : 3 May 2021

Date revision received : 14 July 2021

Date accepted : 23 July 2021

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

Read this article at