Introduction

Authoring scientific publications can provide clinicians opportunities to further their clinical or scientific career. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be offered based on fulfilling four criteria [1]:

  1. 1.

    “1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

  2. 2.

    Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

  3. 3.

    Final approval of the version to be published; AND

  4. 4.

    Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved [1].”

Honorary authorship (HA) is a term used for authors enlisted who do not fulfill these criteria. As HA gives inappropriate credit to authors, it is classified as scientific misconduct in the medical literature [2]. It is unknown to what extent HA is an issue in the maxillofacial literature.

Therefore, the aim of the current study is to analyze the proportion of HA in different journals in various journals in the oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Material and Methods

In 2020, a twenty-two question survey was sent to corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in four high-impact journals in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Editorials, manuscript correspondence and articles with only one author were excluded. The survey covered (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines and decision-making of authorship, and (3) honorary authorship [3,4,5,6]. The survey contained a list of “non-authorship” tasks such as obtaining funding. Authors performing one or more of these tasks and not contributing to the manuscript otherwise, are defined as “ICMJE-defined HA.” Furthermore, respondents were asked if they felt that one or more of their co-authors did not deserve authorship. This was defined as “self-perceived” HA.

Results

Demographics

In total, 227 out of the 914 sent surveys were answered, leading to a response rate of 24.8% (see Fig. 1). Most respondents were employed as oral and maxillofacial surgeon (65.2%), while they represent working locations from 40 different countries (see Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study procedures. BJOMS British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, JOMS Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, JCMS Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, IJOMS International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Full size image
Table 1 Answers on questions regarding demographics, authorship guidelines and authorship decision-making
Full size table

Awareness of Authorship Guidelines and Decision-Making of Authorship

Before the survey, 81.1% was aware of the ICMJE-guidelines, while 56.3% was aware of the issue of HA. Regarding the publication surveyed, the order of authorship was mostly decided by authors as a group (40.1%), followed by the first author (29.1%) and senior author (22.5%) deciding. The order of authors was mostly determined by the amount each contributed (42.9%).

Honorary Authorship

Overall, the proportion of self-perceived HA was 15.5%, which ranges from 5.5 to 21.3% among the journals surveyed, while the proportion ICMJE-defined HA was 49.8% ranging from 41.0% to 57.6%. Continent of employment and the journal surveyed were not associated with HA.

Figure 2 gives an overview of opinions on authorship issues. Most respondents (strongly) agreed (68.3%) that journals asking for “a statement of contribution” before submitting a work, does not prevent HA.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Opinions on authorship issues

Full size image

Discussion

The present study shows that the vast majority of the respondents are aware of the ICMJE-guidelines and agree with them. Despite this awareness of authorship guidelines, the proportion of self-perceived HA was 15.5%, while the proportion of ICMJE-defined HA was 49.8%.

Some limitations have to be acknowledged. First, the response rate is 24.8% which may introduce selection bias. Second, we surveyed corresponding authors. Corresponding authors might consist of more senior authors which can give a lower estimate of HA. Finally, recall bias could be introduced due to the retrospective nature of the survey. Previous published studies suggest some solutions to reduce the proportion of HA. For example, a solution might be the implementation of courses on publication ethics for researchers. Another solution might be the referral to and endorsement of authorship guidelines by medical journals. Furthermore, implementing a support system to discuss and resolve authorship disputes may also help reduce the proportion of HA [7].

Based on the estimated proportions of HA, attempts should be made by universities, medical journals and individual researchers to further reduce authorship misuse. These attempts should not only focus on raising awareness of authorship guidelines but also on facilitating open discussions of authorship issues for both junior and senior researchers.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.