Lesional wide excision (complete excision) with secondary intention healing yields a meaningful local cure rate for HS and is well tolerated.

Introduction Honorary authorship (HA) is defined as an enlisted co‐author who did not make sufficient contributions to merit being included as a co‐author according to the ICMJE guidelines on authorship. It is unknown if HA is present in the surgical literature. Methods We analysed studies published in 2016 in five journals with the highest impact factor in general surgery. All original articles, reviews and clinical trials with more than one author were included. Corresponding authors of these manuscripts received an online survey by email. The survey consisted of three parts focussing on demographics, knowledge and application of the ICMJE guidelines, and deciding authorship. Results In total, 320 of the 1037 surveys were completed (30.9%). Two hundred and seventy‐two (88.6%) of the corresponding authors were aware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines, and 203 (66.3%) were aware of the general issue of honorary authorship. One hundred and thirty‐five (44.0%) responders reported at least one co‐author who only performed tasks which should not merit actual authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines. Furthermore, only 46 (15.0%) of the responders believed that a co‐author listed for their article did not make sufficient contribution to merit being included as co‐author. No significant differences were found between the journals investigated. Conclusion Despite ICMJE guidelines to reduce HA, the prevalence may still exist to a higher level than preferable. The authors plead for more transparent authorship systems in which journal editors and senior department members take more responsibility into enforcement of the ICMJE guidelines.

Purpose: To report the prevalence of honorary authorship (HA) among different journals in the ophthalmological literature Methods: An online survey was conducted among corresponding authors of six journals with the highest impact factors in the ophthalmological field. The survey consists of questions regarding (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines, and (3) application of authorship guidelines on their current surveyed article. Furthermore, respondents were asked if they felt that according to their understanding of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEs) guidelines, a coauthor on their current article did not deserve authorship (perceived HA). Furthermore, respondents were asked if coauthors performed solely nonauthor tasks (ICMJE-defined HA). Results: Out of the 1688 surveys sent, 333 were returned, leading to a response rate of 19.7%. Eighty-four and a half percent of all respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines. When deciding on order of authorship, most authors decided as a group (43.8%), followed by the senior author deciding (30.1%), and 77 articles were decided by the first author (23.4%). When asked if respondents believed that any of their coauthors did not make sufficient contributions to be included as an author, 8.8% affirmed. One hundred and thirty-one respondents stated that any of their coauthors performed only one or more nonauthor tasks, making the rate of ICMJE-defined HA 39.8%. Conclusions: HA is present throughout all journals surveyed despite endorsement of the ICMJE guidelines by these same journals. The discrepancy between self-perceived HA and ICMJE-defined HA suggests the necessity for modifications to our authorship system or a contemporary revision to the ICMJE guidelines.

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.