Skip to main content

Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors

Abstract

Authorship problems in scholarly journals shake the foundations of research, diminish scientific quality of papers and devalue records of citation tracking services. The ‘Publish or Perish’ mantra is thought to drive some instances of unfair, honorary authorship, particularly in countries of emerging scientific power. Though causes of honorary, gift, guest and ghost authorship are still ill-defined, it is possible to avoid some of these instances by improving awareness of what constitutes authorship and by adhering to the editorial policies of learned associations. This paper overviews common cases of inappropriate authorship and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers and editors of scholarly journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Scott JT (1993) Is it worth writing about? J R Soc Med 86(1):5–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Greene M (2007) The demise of the lone author. Nature 450(7173):1165. doi:10.1038/4501165a

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Patel VM, Ashrafian H, Ahmed K, Arora S, Jiwan S, Nicholson JK, Darzi A, Athanasiou T (2011) How has healthcare research performance been assessed?: a systematic review. J R Soc Med 104(6):251–261. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Osareh F, Chakoli NA, Keshvari M (2010) Co-authorship of Iranian researchers in science, social science, art and humanities citation indexes in the web of science between 2000 and 2006. Inform Sci Technol 25(4):573–595

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Yousefi A, Hemmat M, Gilvari A, Shahmirzadi T (2012) Citation analysis and co-authorship of Iranian researchers in the field of immunology in ISI web of science: a brief report. Tehran Univ Med J 70(3):188–193

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vinther S, Rosenberg J (2012) Authorship trends over the past fifty years in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association (Danish: Ugeskrift for Læger). Dan Med J 59(3):A4390

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mirzazadeh A, Navadeh S, Rokni MB, Farhangniya M (2011) The prevalence of honorary and ghost authorships in Iranian bio-medical journals and its associated factors. Iran J Public Health 40(1):15–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Figg WD, Dunn L, Liewehr DJ, Steinberg SM, Thurman PW, Barrett JC, Birkinshaw J (2006) Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy 26(6):759–767. doi:10.1592/phco.26.6.759

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2009) The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep 10(1):2–6. doi:10.1038/embor.2008.233

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bosch X, Ross JS (2012) Ghostwriting: research misconduct, plagiarism, or fool’s gold? Am J Med 125(4):324–326. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.015

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM (2008) Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 299(15):1800–1812. doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.1800

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Cocco G, Kitas GD (2012) Adverse cardiovascular effects of antirheumatic drugs: implications for clinical practice and research. Curr Pharm Des 18(11):1543–1555. doi:10.2174/138161212799504759

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Butler D (2008) Iranian paper sparks sense of déjà vu. Nature 455(7216):1019. doi:10.1038/4551019a

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD (2011) Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 31(11):1409–1417. doi:10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Leek JT, Taub MA, Pineda FJ (2011) Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy. PLoS ONE 6(11):e26895. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026895

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Marusić M, Bozikov J, Katavić V, Hren D, Kljaković-Gaspić M, Marusić A (2004) Authorship in a small medical journal: a study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Sci Eng Ethics 10(3):493–502

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Dotson B, Slaughter RL (2011) Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals. Am J Health Syst Pharm 68(18):1730–1734

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Corona-Villalobos CP, Mensa M, Eng J, Lewin JS, Kamel IR (2012) Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American journal of roentgenology. Am J Roentgenol 198(6):1247–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Deangelis CD (2011) Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6128

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A (2011) A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE 6(9):e23477. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Baerlocher MO, Newton M, Gautam T, Tomlinson G, Detsky AS (2007) The meaning of author order in medical research. J Investig Med 55(4):174–180. doi:10.2310/6650.2007.06044

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Costas R, Bordons M (2011) Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics 88(1):145–161. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Salita JT (2010) Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff 19(1):36–38

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wang F, Tang L, Bo L, Li J, Deng X (2012) Equal contributions and credit given to authors in critical care medicine journals during a 10-yr period*. Crit Care Med 40(3):967–969

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Tao T, Bo L, Wang F, Li J, Deng X (2012) Equal contributions and credit given to authors in anesthesiology journals during a 10-year period. Scientometrics 91(3):1005–1010. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0558-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hu W, Sun L, Gao J, Li Y, Wang P, Cheng Y, Pan T, Han J, Liu Y, Lu W, Zuo X, Sheng Y, Yao S, He C, Yu Z, Yin X, Cui Y, Yang S, Zhang X (2011) Down-regulated expression of IKZF1 mRNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatol Int 31(6):819–822. doi:10.1007/s00296-010-1576-1

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Akhabue E, Lautenbach E (2010) “Equal” contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Ann Epidemiol 20(11):868–871. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.08.004

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L (1997) When authorship fails: a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 278:579–585. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Smith R (1997) Authorship is dying: long live contributorship. BMJ 315(7110):696

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Carter S (2010) Authorship: definitions and declarations—a perspective from the BMJ. The Write Stuff 19(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Rohlfing T, Poline JB (2012) Why shared data should not be acknowledged on the author byline. Neuroimage 59(4):4189–4195. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.080

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Smith R (2012) Let’s simply scrap authorship and move to contributorship. BMJ 344:e157. doi:10.1136/bmj.e157

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Macrina FL (2011) Teaching authorship and publication practices in the biomedical and life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 17(2):341–354. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9275-1

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Scott-Lichter D (2012) Authorship disputes: me first, me equally, me too, not me. Learn Publ 25(2):83–85. doi:10.1087/20120201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kisacik B, Kalyoncu U, Erol MF, Karadag O, Yildiz M, Akdogan A, Kaptanoglu B, Hayran M, Ureten K, Ertenli I, Kiraz S, Calguneri M (2007) Accurate diagnosis of acute abdomen in FMF and acute appendicitis patients: how can we use procalcitonin? Clin Rheumatol 26(12):2059–2062. doi:10.1007/s10067-007-0617-y

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kisacik B, Kasifoglu T, Akay S, Yilmaz O, Yilmaz S, Simsek I, Erdem H, Pay S, Dinc A (2010) Ulnar artery aneurysm in a patient with Behçet’s disease. Rheumatol Int 30(3):383–385. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-0951-2

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Kisacik B, Yildirim B, Tasliyurt T, Ozyurt H, Ozyurt B, Yuce S, Kaya S, Ertenli I, Kiraz S (2009) Increased frequency of familial Mediterranean fever in northern Turkey: a population-based study. Rheumatol Int 29(11):1307–1309. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-0849-z

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cagatay T, Aydin M, Sunmez S, Cagatay P, Gulbaran Z, Gul A, Artim B, Kilicaslan Z (2010) Follow-up results of 702 patients receiving tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists and evaluation of risk of tuberculosis. Rheumatol Int 30(11):1459–1463. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-1170-6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wager E, Kleinert S on behalf of COPE Council. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). March 2012. Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Research_institutions_guidelines_final.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2012

  40. 40.

    Gasparyan AY (2011) Familiarizing with science editors’ associations. Croat Med J 52(6):735–739. doi:10.3325/cmj.2011.52.735

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Habibzadeh F, Marcovitch H (2012) Authorship dispute among the league of extraordinary gentlemen. Eur Sci Editing 38(2):40–41

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    EASE guidelines for authors and translators of scientific articles to be published in English. Available at http://www.ease.org.uk/sites/default/files/ease_guidelines-june2011c.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2012

  43. 43.

    Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: authorship and contributorship. Available at http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html. Accessed 22 May 2012

  44. 44.

    CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update. Editorial Policy Committee (2011–2012) Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/public/entire_whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2012

  45. 45.

    Wager E (2007) Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed 9(3):16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Jaykaran Yadav P, Chavda N, Kantharia ND (2011) Survey of “instructions to authors” of Indian medical journals for reporting of ethics and authorship criteria. Indian J Med Ethics 8(1):36–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Samad A, Khanzada TW, Siddiqui AA (2009) Do the instructions to authors of Pakistani medical journals convey adequate guidance for authorship criteria? Pak J Med Sci 25(6):879–882

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Wager L (2010) Authorship—more than just writing, but how much more? The Write Stuff 19(1):19–21

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Wager E, Kleinert S, Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd world conference on research integrity, Singapore, 22–24 July 2010. Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2012

  50. 50.

    http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/All_flowcharts.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2012

  51. 51.

    Policy Statements. Prepared by the WAME editorial policy committee. Available at http://www.wame.org/resources/policies. Accessed 20 May 2012

  52. 52.

    Schöffel N, Mache S, Quarcoo D, Scutaru C, Vitzthum K, Groneberg DA, Spallek M (2010) Rheumatoid arthritis: scientific development from a critical point of view. Rheumatol Int 30(4):505–513. doi:10.1007/s00296-009-1005-5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Pile K (2009) Publish or perish. Int J Rheum Dis 12(3):183–185. doi:10.1111/j.1756-185X.2009.01408.x

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The points presented in the paper were discussed at a Continuous Professional Development (CPD) rheumatology research meeting at the Clinical Education Centre of the Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley Group NHS Trust (A Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham), Dudley, UK. The authors thank all participants of the meeting for their comments. AYG and GDK thank the Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, UK for support during the writing the paper.

Conflict of interest

AYG is a sponsored member of the European Association of Science Editors and member of the World Association of Medical Editors. He also serves as the chief editor of European Science Editing and editorial advisory board member and reviewer of more than 20 rheumatological, cardiological and general medical journals. LA declares no conflict of interest. GDK is editorial board member of 5 international journals and reviewer for more than 30 international journals and research funding bodies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armen Yuri Gasparyan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gasparyan, A.Y., Ayvazyan, L. & Kitas, G.D. Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatol Int 33, 277–284 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Authorship
  • Editorial policies
  • Periodicals as topic
  • Research standards