Table 1.
Overview of studies included in our review describing the ethical concerns regarding authorship
| Author/s, year, and country | Purpose | Sample | Significant finding/s and outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Akhabue and Lautenbach27 (2010) (USA) | Identify longitudinal trends and characteristics of explicitly giving authors equal credit in publications in medical journals | Primary research manuscripts with equal-credited authors (ECA) published between 2000 and 2009 in the five general medicine journals with the highest impact factors | The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit the majority of the time; however the practice was also applied to authors in nearly every position in the by-line; none of the journals review had a detailed ECA policy. |
| Al-Herz et al16 (2014) (Kuwait) | Determine the prevalence of honorary authorship in biomedical publications and identify the factors that lead to its existence | Corresponding authors (n=1,246) of articles published in different biomedical journals in PubMed over a year | 33.4% of authors admitted adding people who did not deserve authorship credit; rationales encompassed complimentary (39.4%), avoiding conflict (16.1%), and facilitating acceptance (7.2%); journal specialty, geography, impact factor, and number of authors were significantly associated with honorary authorship; 75% of authors would remove unjustified names |
| Bonekamp et al15 (2012) (USA) | Determine the prevalence of honorary authorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) and evaluate factors that might influence the perception of honorary authorship | Corresponding authors (n=490) of primary research manuscripts published in AJR in the period 2003–2010 | 399 authors were unaware of ICMJE, 41 followed no guidelines; 39 departmental guidelines; 91 stated senior members automatically listed, 65% thought this justified; 121 perceived one or more listed made limited authorship contributions; 340 claimed first authorship, drafted manuscript conveying limited information of co-authors |
| Eisenberg et al20 (2011) (USA) | Quantify the frequency of perceived honorary authorship and identify specific factors that increase the prevalence within radiology journals | First authors (n=392) of articles published in radiology journals between July 2006 and June 2009 | 102 first authors perceived one or more made insufficient contribution to merit authorship; 231 stated one or more performed non author ICMJE roles; perceptions of honorary authorship higher with authors who did not follow journal requirements; 96 authors stated departmental head was automatically listed. |
| Eisenberg et al21 (2014) (USA) | Quantify the potential effects of geographic factors on the frequency of honorary authorship in radiology journals | First authors (n=328) of papers published in radiology journals between July 2006 and June 2009 | 91 first authors perceived at least one co-author made limited contributions; 245 unaware of honorary authorship; Asia/Europe experienced greater perception of honorary authorship than North America with departmental heads automatically listed. |
| Ghajarzadeh30 (2014) (Iran) | Evaluates the number of authors fulfilling ICMJE authorship criteria and determines the type of contribution | Researchers’ names (n=296; 128 original manuscripts) with at least two authors published in Archives of Iranian Medicine, 2005–2007 | 186 met authorship criteria; 110 were identified as guest authors, 97 of whom qualified to be mentioned in the acknowledgments; order of authors was mainly determined by corresponding authors and secondly by the first author; only 31 authors had read the ICMJE criteria |
| Ivaniš et al24 (2011) (Croatia) | Assess the association between authors’ perceived importance of contributions and participation in manuscripts | Authors (n=1,014; 235 manuscripts), July 2005–March 2006 | 765 authors were identified as qualifying under the ICMJE ranking contribution categories higher than non – qualifying authors; attitudes towards authorship criteria were related to authors’ contribution for the preparation of the manuscript. |
| Li et al26 (2013) (People’s Republic of China) | Investigate the prevalence and characteristics of designating ECA | Primary research manuscripts given equal credit in three anesthesia journals, 2002–2011 | Increasing trend in proportion of manuscripts with ECA; first 2 authors had ECA in the majority of cases; the last two authors was the second most common; Western Europe largest ECA’s followed by Asia and USA; No clear reference to ECA’s in their guidelines. |
| Malicki et al31 (2012) (Croatia) | Assess how authors describe their contribution to submitted manuscripts without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the ICMJE | Responses of authors (n=1,282) who submitted manuscripts (n=335) to Croatian Medical Journal, March 2009–July 2010, transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria | 87% responses matched to ICMJE; 38.6% met ICMJE criteria for research/writing; 31.8% declared conducting research; 9.4% writing; of these, 56.3% stated significant contributions without justification. 13% could not be match to ICMJE; manuscripts > 8 authors declared more contributions than manuscripts < 8 authors. |
| McDonald et al32 (2010) (USA) | Determine whether editorial policies are designed to eliminate gratuitous authorship | 16 medical journals – eight with explicit authorship guidelines and eight without formal authorship policies (n=307; 190 manuscripts), 1986–2006 | Significant trend toward increasing authorship for nearly all journals reviewed; implementation of authorship limitation policies was not significant and does not slow the trend of increasing numbers of authors per manuscript over time |
| Mirzazadeh et al17 (2011) (Iran) | Investigate the prevalence of ghost and honorary authors and its determinant factors among Iranian biomedical journals | First or corresponding authors (n=536 authors; 124 manuscripts) published in Iran Journal of Public Health, Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences, and Tehran University Medical Journal | 56.1% were identified as honorary authors according to ICMJE criteria; approximately 55% of listed authors were honorary authors; 89% of manuscripts had had at least one honorary author and 20% had >3; 21.43% admitted they had been omitted as authors (ghost) |
| Nylenna et al22 (2014) (Norway) | Attitudes and practices of scientific authorship at a university hospital and medical school in Norway | Faculty, researchers, and PhD students at Oslo University Hospital and the Medical Faculty, University of Oslo (n=654) | 97% had knowledge of authorship; 68% regarded breaches as misconduct; <5 publications more likely to regard breaches as misconduct than >50; 58% in authorship disputes; 29% excluded despite perceived merit; 36% experienced pressure from undeserving authors; researchers with <6 years’ experience found authorship difficult. |
| O’Brien et al19 (2009) (Canada) | Examine the perception of honorary coauthorship among medical academics and determine whether a potential effect of honorary coauthorship affects patient care | Corresponding authors (n=127) of every fourth primary research paper in JAMA (2001–2003), CMAJ (2001–2003), BMJ (1998–2000), and Lancet (1998–2000) | 52% listed an honorary co-author in their career; 18% listed authors with commercial relationships; negative effects of honorary authorship included personal liability for honorary authors (29%) co-author contribution dilution (54%); 62% stated honorary co-authorship may negatively affect patient care; 2% stated this phenomenon occurred. |
| Rajasekaran et al13 (2014) (Canada) | Estimate the prevalence of perceived honorary authorship and ICMJE-defined honorary authorship within physical medicine and rehabilitation literature | First authors (n=1,182) of three major physical medicine and rehabilitation journals, January 2009–December 2011 | Perceived and ICMJE- defined honorary authorship 18.0% and 55.2% respectively; the most senior author deciding the authorship order; living outside North America was independently associated with ICMJE- defined honorary authorship; most senior author deciding authorship order was associated with ICMJE- defined honorary authorship |
| Resnik and Master29(2011) (USA) | Determine the percentage of journals that have authorship policies and describe the different provisions contained in journal author policies | Authorship policies of 30 bioethics journals | 63.3% of bioethics journals no guidance on authorship; 36.7% guidance on contributions meriting authorship; 23.3% on contributions that do not merit authorship; 23.3% require responsibility for contributions/article; 20% provided guidance on which contributions merit acknowledgment but not authorship; 6.7% required description of contributions. |
| Street et al23 (2010) (Australia) | To explore the experiences of research publications and views on the responsibilities of authorship. | Health care researchers’ (n=17) experiences and perspectives of the guidelines, regulations, organizational structures, and cultures, which underpin norms of behavior in publication of health research | Drafting, seniority and supervision were attributions of authorship; gift authorship seen as maintaining relationships, a reward, increase a paper’s credibility or collaboration; perceptions differed markedly between disciplines; power differentials concerning authorship were common; little or no discussion about assignation of author order. |
| Vinther andRosenberg18 (2012) (Denmark) | Assess Danish authors’ general authorship experiences and views on authorship and authorship criteria | Authors (n=292) of articles published in Ugeskrift for Læger and Danish Medical Journal in 2010, coauthors and contributors, general authorship experiences, and views on authorship and authorship criteria | Authorship order by size of contribution 38%; 22% determined by first author and 11% last author; others alphabetically; 84% knew about ICMJE; 75% agreed fulfillment of ICMJE; 17% offered gift authorship; 16% invited to gift authorship themselves; 29% had experienced ghost authorship. |
| Wang et al28 (2012) (People’s Republic of China) | Investigate the prevalence and characteristics of designating two or more authors as having “contributed equally” in the area of critical care | Original research articles with ECAs published in the period 2001–2010 in four major journals of critical care medicine | Increasing trend in yearly prevalence of ECA for all the journals; first 2 authors received equal credit in the majority of cases, and found in nearly every position in the by-line; none of the 4 journals reviewed provided guidance to authors concerning equal credit. |
| Wislar et al14 (2011) (USA) | Assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in leading general medical journals between 1996 and 2008 | Corresponding authors (n=896) who published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008 | Honorary authorship or ghost authorship was 21.0%;; 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. |
| Zbar and Frank25 (2011) (Canada) | Identify common perceptions of authorship position in the medical research community | First, last, and one randomly selected author in between (n=362) of articles with at least three authors published in 2007 from ten prominent general medical journals and 20 other randomly selected journals | 1.1% identified ICMJE; authors stated data acquisition/analysis and interpretation was responsibility of first vs last author; revisions/approval to be first and last authors’ responsibility; first author viewed 7 times likely involved with study/writing; last authors 7 times likely viewed as limited contribution/senior position. |
Abbreviations: BMJ, British Medical Journal; CMAJ, Canadian Medical Association Journal; ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association; ECA, equal-credited authors.