Equal Contributions and Credit: An Emerging Trend in the Characterization of Authorship in Major Anaesthesia Journals during a 10-Yr Period

Abstract

BackgroundThe practice of giving certain authors equal credit in original research publications was increasingly common in some specialty. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of designating some authors with equally credited authors (ECAs) in major anaesthesia journals.Methodology/Principal FindingsThe practice of giving authors equal credit was searched and identified in the three major anaesthesia journals between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011. Papers with ECAs had a higher proportion of the total number of articles in 2011 versus published in 2002 (Anesthesiology, 8.8% vs. 0.9%; British Journal of Anaesthesia, 8.8% vs. 0%; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 3.4% vs. 0.3%; totally, 6.4% vs. 0.4%). A significant increasing trend in annual proportion of articles with ECA was found in the three journals. The first two authors listed in the byline had equal credit in most cases.Conclusions/SignificanceThe practice of giving authors equal credit in original research papers is increasingly common in major anaesthesia journals. It may be warranted for the journals to guide the authors how to regard this practice.

Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

“…26,27 Li et al, 26 Wang et al, 28 and Akhabue and Lautenbach 27 all found significant increases in ECA contributions to original research papers over a 10-year period, as well as an increasing trend in the yearly prevalence of ECA manuscripts for all journals reviewed. Across the studies identified, [26][27][28] the first two authors listed in the byline received equal credit most of the time, with Li et al 26 reporting incidence of 84.9%, Wang et al 28 reporting 75.4%, and Akhabue and Lautenbach 27 reporting 63.7%. Multiple combinations of other-order authors receiving equal credit were reported less often.…”

“…Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria (Table 1) and incorporated a wide range of authorship issues, encompassing honorary (guest/gift) authorship, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] ghost authorship, 14,17,18 equal-credited authors (ECA), [26][27][28] and authorship criteria and policies. 18,22,[29][30][31][32] The 20 included papers were conducted across nine different countries, including the People's Republic of China, 26,28 Denmark, 18 Australia, 23 Canada, 13,19,25 Norway, 22 Kuwait, 16 Iran, 17,30 USA, 14,15,20,21,27,29,32 and Croatia.…”

“…18,22,[29][30][31][32] The 20 included papers were conducted across nine different countries, including the People's Republic of China, 26,28 Denmark, 18 Australia, 23 Canada, 13,19,25 Norway, 22 Kuwait, 16 Iran, 17,30 USA, 14,15,20,21,27,29,32 and Croatia. 24,31 The majority of papers were surveys of authors' experience of authorship.…”

“…Among the studies that reported ECAs, the first two authors in the byline had equal credit in the majority of cases, with no clear guidance or set criteria provided. [26][27][28] Of the papers that reported ghost authorship, Mirzazadeh et al 17 stated that 21.43% of authors confessed that they had omitted an author; Vinther and Rosenberg 18 specified that 29% of authors had experienced being omitted from a manuscript or knew of others who were omitted; and Wislar et al 14 detailed that 7.9% of manuscripts (49/622 responses) were found to have ghost authors. Of the papers that reported the author's response rate, the rate of response varied significantly from 15.75% to 85.9%.…”

“…Li et al 26 found that the median number of authors listed in the byline of ECA manuscripts was between six and seven, Akhabue and Lautenbach 27 reported a median between four and 13, and Wang et al 28 reported between eight and ten. The median number of ECAs across journals reviewed was two.…”