SynthesisPloS one2011
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
95 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Pooled it
- Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- Assessment of influential authors and articles in spine surgery research: a narrative review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Authority and Authorship: Examining Leadership's Role in Medical Publications.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Understanding of Authorship Guidelines and the Frequency of Authorship Misuse: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in the State of Qatar.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Creating a responsible authorship culture in science: Anchoring authorship practices in principles of transparency, credit, and accountability.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- Attribution of credit in acknowledgements: The case of systematic reviews in medicine.PloS one · 2026Article
- Consortium Authorship: Ethical Tensions in Emerging Authorship Practices in Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research.Journal of academic ethics · 2025Article
- Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2024Article
- Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research over the past 15 years.International journal of women's dermatology · 2024Article
35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields.
methodsWe searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews.
resultsThe final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings.
interpretationHigh prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.