Authorship of Health Education Articles: Guests, Ghosts, and Trends

Price, James H.; Dake, Joseph A.; Oden, Lorette

doi:10.5993/ajhb.24.4.5

Cited by 16 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fifty-four studies examined the perceptions of authorship buy different stakeholders, authorship definitions in use and actual practices, and contributions for deserving authorship (T able 1 and T able S3): 31 studies from the health research field [13], [16], [23], [25], [26], [31], [35], [36], [39], [41], [47], [50], [52], [54], [57], [60], [65], [66], [77], [80], [82], [94], [100], [102]–[104], [106], [110]–[112], [121];12 studies from social sciences [11], [12], [14], [18], [24], [27], [33], [34], [48], [49], [55], [91], 6 studies from more than one research field [29], [45], [90], [116], [122], [128] and 5 studies from natural sciences, published in 6 articles [46], [58], [79], [101], [119], [126].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across disciplines, adding undeserving authors or excluding deserving authors was considered unethical [14], [33], [36], [50], [68], [70], [71], [77], [90], [109], but was reported to be a practice by 10% to 89% of the respondents [18], [31], [41], [46], [50], [58], [65], [68], [75], [82], [85], [91], [96], [109], [114], [127]. Prestige was an important factor in deciding on authorship, as articles from more prestigious economics journals had more authors and fewer contributors in the acknowledgement then those from less prestigious journals [76].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.InterpretationHigh 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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six cross-sectional survey publications reported the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (ie, the prevalence of ghostwriting and ghost authoring combined) 20 22 23 27 28 32. The prevalence of possible ghostwriting reported in these cross-sectional surveys varied from 0.9% to 24.1% of publications or authors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature

Stretton

2014

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGhostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.ObjectiveTo systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.Data sourcesMEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.Eligibility criteriaAll publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.ResultsOf the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.ConclusionsEvidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.

show abstract

“…В совместных работах западных и азиатских учёных плохое знание английского языка может препятствовать соответствию авторов третьему критерию авторства и принципу тройной блокировки [60]. Выявлено, что все три критерия авторства поддерживают менее 50% преподавателей медицинских факультетов [61].…”

Section: критика современной модели авторстваunclassified

Authorship criteria and the problem of its attribution in scholarly papers

Гуреев

Мазов

Lakizo³

2019

Naučnye i tehničeskie biblioteki

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

В. Н. Гуреев, Н. А. Мазов Институт нефтегазовой геологии и геофизики им. А. А. Трофимука СО РАН ГПНТБ СО РАН И. Г. Лакизо ГПНТБ СО РАН Критерии авторства и проблема его атрибуции в научных публикациях Усложнение научных исследований, появление новых областей на стыках различных дисциплин, расширение международного сотрудничества способствуют росту числа авторов в расчёте на научную публикацию, а также увеличению числа соавторов. Это ведёт к проблеме атрибуции авторства, требующей разработки новых подходов к выявлению авторских ролей и формированию новых критериев авторства. Решение проблемы атрибуции авторства призвано установить действительный вклад учёного в подготовку исследования и статьи по его результатам, разграничить зоны ответственности соавторов, позволить отдельным учёным накапливать собственный репутационный капитал. В статье представлен обзор отечественных и зарубежных подходов к решению обозначенной проблемы, включая формирование новых разделов публикаций для указания лиц, не соответствующих критериям авторства, и разработку моделей упорядочения имён авторов. Прослежены основные этапы формирования критериев авторства, отражены преимущества и недостатки модели авторства посредством противопоставления новой модели описания видов участия в научном исследовании. Перспективным представляется переход к фракционному учёту вклада каждого из создателей научного произведения, при котором возрастает значение позиции авторов в авторской строке и усиливается роль разделов публикации с конкретным описанием авторского вклада. Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта 19-011-00534. Ключевые слова: авторство, соавторство, авторский вклад, критерии авторства, атрибуция авторства, недобросовестное авторство. Науч. и техн. б-ки, 2019, № 12 6 SCIENTOMETRICS. BIBLIOMETRICS UDC 808.1 A complication of academic research, the emergence of new subject areas at the intersection of different scientific disciplines, increase in international collaboration are accompanied by an increase in the number of co-authors resulting in the problem of author attribution requiring the development of new approaches to detecting authors' roles and formation of new authorship criteria. The solution of the problem of authorship attribution should specify actual contribution of the scientist to preparing research and the paper, distinguish areas of responsibility of coauthors, and enable certain researchers to accumulate their own reputation capital. The current study presents a review of Russian and foreign approaches for solving this problem including the development of new sections in articles for naming persons who do not match authorship criteria and introduction of models of sequence order of authors. The paper also traces the main stages in the development of authorship criteria, describes the advantages and disadvantages of authorship model as compared to new contributorship model. Transition to the fractional calculation of the contribution of each participant of a research paper is believed to be p...

show abstract

Authorship of Health Education Articles: Guests, Ghosts, and Trends

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature

Authorship criteria and the problem of its attribution in scholarly papers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About