Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery

Noruzi, Anahita; Takkenberg, Johanna J.M.; Kayapa, B.; Verhemel, Alex; Gadjradj, Pravesh S.

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.10.104

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our study showed that most commonly perceived detrimental research practices were undeserved authorship (as was also shown by previous research) [26,27], and prior relevant research not being cited. While there were no significant differences between perceptions of authors, reviewers, and editors regarding the prevalence of undeserved authorship; editors perceived higher prevalence of relevant research not being cited as well as higher prevalences of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism than authors or reviewers.…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 85%

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 85%

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies in other medical fields such as Dermatology and Cardio-thoracic Surgery, found prevalences of ICMJE-based HA from 13.5% to 62.7%, while some other studies found prevalences of self-perceived HA of 13.5%–27.7%. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine

Nurmohamed

Voigt²,

Awadpersad³

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To facilitate decision-making in authorship positions, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) developed a guideline that stipulates criteria authors should meet in order to merit authorship. Authors who did not meet these criteria and still enlisted as authors, are called 'honorary' authors. In this study, the prevalence and characteristics of honorary authorship (HA) is assessed in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. Methods: A survey was distributed among corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in six Orthopedics-dedicated journals. Results: 479 of the 1392 approached authors responded, leading to a response rate of 34.4%. 91.6% of the respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines, whereas 67.8% were aware of the issue of HA. Overall, the prevalence of guideline-based HA was 41.9%, while the prevalence of self-perceived HA was 14.7%. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as author on the departments, was associated with a higher rate of guideline-based HA (OR 5.03) and self-perceived HA (OR 3.31). Conclusions: The prevalence of HA in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine is high, but comparable to other medical fields. Transparency in authorship decision-making is crucial to maintain liability in scientific articles.

show abstract

“…The prevalence of HA is commonly [17][18][19] measured as perceived HA or HA according to the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [7]. These and other key terms are de ned in Table 1.…”

Section: Review Item 3: Researchers Admitting Being An Honorary Author On a Publicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honorary Authorship in Health Sciences: A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Survey Research

Reynders

Riet

Girolamo

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHonorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.MethodsSurveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14 items checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency.DiscussionThe outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/

show abstract

Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery

Cited by 10 publications

References 18 publications

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine

Honorary Authorship in Health Sciences: A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Survey Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About