Gift authorship: Look the gift horse in the mouth

Varghese, Joe; Jacob, Mohan V.

doi:10.20529/ijme.2022.028

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The paper "Gift authorship: Look the gift horse in the mouth" is an excellent exposition of the causes and consequences of the practice of gift authorship, not only in research on medical and related issues but also in the entire academic domain in India [1]. It can act as a starting point for a campaign against such practices.…”

Section: Abstract: Authorship India Icmje Gift Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gift authorship: Two more contexts

Dilip¹

2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of multi-centric studies and collaborative research between institutions within and outside the country, and of research led by authors who are from the same family, has led to notable changes in the production of public health research evidence from India. There is a potential risk of research publications overlooking the well known ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) criteria for authorship, with the provision of gift authorship to researchers who can facilitate faster access to Indian data for such collaborative research. The paper calls for action to reduce the practice of gift authorship in these research settings.

show abstract

Section: Abstract: Authorship India Icmje Gift Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gift authorship: Two more contexts

Dilip¹

2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Joe Varghese and Molly Jacob provide a comprehensive discussion on the practice of gift and ghost authorship in academic research, focusing in particular on the academic environment that fosters the practice [13]. Their discussion is relevant anywhere in the world, but their article provides particularly interesting details on how it plays out in India, and how the academic reward structure and culture may contribute to it.…”

Section: Authorship and The Academic Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship controversies in academic publication: implications for science and the research environment

Lemmens¹,

Srinivasan²

2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inspiration for this theme issue came from one of the biggest challenges that the journal has faced since its inception.On April 30, 2018, IJME published a submission from a person declaring affiliation to a respected research institution. The submission had been sent for external peer review and was revised before acceptance. Within a few days, the editor-in-chief learned that the author had used a false name and affiliation. The editors immediately removed the affiliation from the website, later replacing it with a notice that the author's name was a pseudonym. An investigation by the editor-in-chief led to the verification of the author's identity. It also confirmed that the author was competent to make the analysis published, and did face a "credible threat of harm", requiring protection of their identity.The article which was an analysis of a public database, requiring no special data access to be critiqued, remained on the journal website for some days. It was eventually retracted following extensive discussion among the members of the editorial board, on the grounds that "there should be zero tolerance to the author's deception, irrespective of the content of the paper" [1]. Its publication under a pseudonym had also received strong criticism in the academic community. The fact that the paper touched on the potential harm of a particular vaccine may have played a role in the vehemence of the critiques.The discussions at the time inspired the journal's editors to explore, with some targeted publications, the subject of authorship in academic publication. One of us has been involved in a related initiative in the past, which focused specifically on ghost and guest writing in scientific publications [2,3]. This topic also comes up in several essays in this theme issue on authorship, and is the specific focus of one; but this special issue also explores the broader context in which authorship controversies occur, and not only controversies associated with commercial interests.

show abstract

“…Writing a research paper is not too different from other products of human ingenuity, such as a piece of music or a movie, but its intellectual property is not adequately protected, even by the authors of a publication, who gladly share the paternity of their work with other colleagues who did not play an active or adequate role to its creation. This common practice, known as courtesy authorship, is often considered “victimless”; nevertheless, it can deeply damage the authors themselves or other colleagues when competing for an academic position or a grant for research [ 1 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The incidence of courtesy authorship in research over time has probably increased due to the enormous pressure to publish to increase the bibliometric indexes necessary to achieve an academic role. The aim of this survey was to quantify and characterize this research malpractice among a very selected group of surgeons from different surgical specialties belonging to the European Association of Surgery (ESA). E-mail addresses for the invitation to take part to the survey were collected by the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting final program. Five-item were designed and developed by the authors using an online platform. Eighty-six members from 21 countries completed the survey (female/male ratio: 0.09). In the last 10 years, almost half of the responders (41, 47.7%, 37 academics) have included colleagues for courtesy authorship. The most common reason of courtesy authorships was to support the academic career of another researcher (62.5%). Other reasons were fear of retaliation (12.5%), reciprocal authorship (12.5%) or support for a partner (10%). This survey showed that undeserved authorship is sadly confirmed to be a common research misconduct across any countries and medical specialties, even among a very selected group of surgeons with international reputation irrespective of the academic position.

show abstract

Gift authorship: Look the gift horse in the mouth

Cited by 5 publications

References 37 publications

Gift authorship: Two more contexts

Gift authorship: Two more contexts

Authorship controversies in academic publication: implications for science and the research environment

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About