scholarly journals Honorary authorship in high-impact journals in anaesthesia and pain medicine

2021 ◽  
pp. 204946372110235
Author(s):  
Roshni HS Matawlie ◽  
Jamie RJ Arjun Sharma ◽  
Judith D de Rooij ◽  
Geetanjali Sardjoe Mishre ◽  
Frank JPM Huygen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
International Committee ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Pain Medicine ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Senior Member ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Published Paper

Enlisting an author on a published paper, whose input was insufficient, is called honorary authorship. The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of honorary authorship in the field of pain medicine. Data were collected from seven high-impact journals. Corresponding authors were sent a survey regarding their awareness on authorship guidelines, the decision-making in authorship and specific contributions made to the surveyed article. We identified two types of honorary authorship: (1) self-perceived honorary authorship, which is measured by asking the corresponding author if honorary authorship was present according to their opinion and (2) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined honorary authorship, which is honorary authorship based on the guidelines. In total, 1051 mails were sent and 231 responded, leading to a response rate of 22.0%. 81.3% of the respondents were familiar with the ICMJE authorship guidelines, while 59.6% were aware of the issue of honorary authorship. 13.3% of the respondents were employed at a department in which the senior member is automatically included on all manuscripts. The ICMJE-defined honorary authorship was 40%, while self-perceived honorary authorship was 13.5%. There seems to be a high awareness of the ICMJE guidelines among corresponding authors in the field of Pain Medicine. Despite this high awareness, a high proportion of journal articles had honorary authorship, suggesting that authorship guidelines fail to be applied in a significant proportion of the literature.

scholarly journals Authorship in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-335
Author(s):  
Pravesh S. Gadjradj ◽  
Mamta Jalimsing ◽  
Sandhia Jalimsing ◽  
Istifari Voigt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Journal ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Maxillofacial Surgery ◽  
International Committee ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Question Survey

Abstract Background and Objective According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be offered based on fulfilling four criteria. Honorary authorship (HA) is a term used for authors enlisted who did not fulfill these criteria. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of HA in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Material and Methods In 2020, a twenty-two question survey was sent to corresponding authors of four high-impact journals in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The survey covered (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines and decision-making of authorship, and (3) honorary authorship. Results The response rate was 24.8%. Of the respondents, 81.1% was aware of the issue of guidelines on authorship, while 56.3% was aware of the issue of HA. Yet, 15.5% of the respondents felt that one or more of their co-authors did not deserve authorship based on the ICMJE-guidelines. Conclusion Based on the estimated proportions of HA, attempts should be made by universities, medical journals and individual researchers to further reduce authorship misuse.

scholarly journals Honorary authorship in Geriatric Literature: do authors adhere to the ICMJE-guidelines?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Verhemel ◽  
Yalda Dahi ◽  
Selay Kakar ◽  
Pravesh S. Gadjradj
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Journal ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Senior Member ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Survey Response Rate ◽  
Honorary Authorship

To protect appropriate authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) formulated a guideline on authorship. Researchers not fulfilling these criteria and still enlisted as author are seen as honorary authors (HA). The objective of this study is to assess authorship decision making and the proportion of HA in journals in the field of geriatrics and gerontology. Corresponding authors of six highimpact journals in geriatrics and gerontology were sent a survey. The survey consisted of three parts: i) demographics of the respondent; ii) awareness of authorship guidelines; and iii) authorship decisions made for the paper they are authors of. Respondents were also asked if one of their coauthors does not deserve authorship. This is defined as self-perceived HA. Furthermore, respondents were asked if any of their co-authors only performed tasks from a list of non-authorship tasks. This is defined as ICMJE-defined HA. Of the 1592 contacted authors, 528 filled in a survey (response rate 33.2%). 84.4% was aware of the ICMJE-guidelines, but 44.2% was unaware of the issue of HA. The proportion of self-perceived HA was 12.7%. Independent factors associated with more self-perceived HA were having a senior member automatically enlisted as coauthor [odds ratio (OR) 3.4, 95%confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 6.4] and have gotten the suggestion to include an HA (OR 11.1, 95% CI 4.4 to 27.9). The proportion of ICMJE defined HA was 39.3%. The journal surveyed (OR 1.2, 1.0 to 1.3) was associated with more, and awareness of the ICMJE-guidelines (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.9) was associated with less ICMJE-defined HA respectively. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as co-author (OR 2.1 95% CI 1.3 to 3.4) and having anyone suggest to include an HA (OR 4.8 95% CI 1.8 to 12.8) were also associated with more ICMJE-defined HA. More than one out of ten of the corresponding authors thinks that based on the ICMJE-guidelines, one or more of their coauthors did not deserve authorship. A stricter journal policy and more awareness of the ICMJE-guidelines could help reduce the proportion of HA.

Frequency and Factors Associated With Honorary Authorship in Indian Biomedical Journals: Analysis of Papers Published From 2012 to 2013

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akash Shah ◽  
Sathish Rajasekaran ◽  
Anup Bhat ◽  
John M. Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
International Committee ◽  
General Issue ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Honorary Authorship

Honorary authorship is the inclusion of an author on an article whose contribution does not warrant authorship. We conducted an Internet-based survey among first authors publishing in Indian biomedical journals from 2012 to 2013 to study the frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship. The response rate was 27% (245/908) with the prevalence of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined, and unperceived honorary authorship of 20.9% (50/239), 60% (147/245), and 46.9% (115/245), respectively. Those residing in India were found to list more honorary authors. We hope to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorship among researchers in India and elsewhere.

Authorship

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Collection Data ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter begins with a definition of authorship and provides the The Proposed Rapid Review Checklist for Authors (the 5Ds: design, data collection, data analysis, discussion of findings, the ability to define the paper and its message) which may be useful in judging whether authorship should be considered. The authorship model proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is also outlined. The chapter also discusses different forms of inappropriate authorship models (ghost authorship, guest/honorary authorship, anonymous authorship) and presents intellectual property and copyright considerations. An author's responsibility to report an original, accurate, focused and repeatable account of the research conducted is also discussed.

scholarly journals Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Cobey ◽  
Zarah Monfaredi ◽  
Evelyn Poole ◽  
Laurie Proulx ◽  
Dean Fergusson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Academic Affiliation ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Participation In Research

Abstract Background Access to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief’ perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal’s operations incorporate patient partner perspectives. Results One hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors. Conclusions Our findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.

scholarly journals Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036899
Author(s):  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Ilaria Montagni ◽  
Elizabeth Loder ◽  
M Eikermann ◽  
Elke Schäffner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
International Committee ◽  
International Survey ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Research Setting ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
High Level

ObjectivesTo investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were ‘very familiar’ with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’ encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.

scholarly journals Honorary Authorship: Is There Any Chance to Stop It? Analysis of the Literature and a Personal Opinion

Tomography ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 801-803
Author(s):  
Emilio Quaia ◽  
Filippo Crimi’
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Personal Opinion ◽  
Honorary Authorship

Honorary authorship corresponds to the intentional misrepresentation of credit to an individual whose contributions to a biomedical article do not meet the criteria for authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [...]

Evaluating Qualitative Research

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Community ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Past ◽  
Grant Proposals

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document