ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011
Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
119 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.BMJ open · 2014Pooled it
- Knowledge of undisclosed corporate authorship ("ghostwriting") reduces the perceived credibility of antidepressant research: a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses.BMC research notes · 2012Trial
- When promotion becomes a bounty on publications: how academic reward systems shape publication behavior, with lessons from Nepal.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Authorship Accountability and Transparency: A Standardized Model from the Global Andrology Forum.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Equitable authorship in Global Gynecologic Oncology trials: the Asia Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT) framework.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 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
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- From Solo to Collaborative: The Global Increase in Neuroscience Authors Over Two Decades.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Publication integrity: what is it, why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- Reforming medical career progression: a call for merit-based systems.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Worldwide research tendency and collaborations on models of necrotizing enterocolitis: bibliometric exploration over the past three decades.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Retraction of biomedical publications with Tunisian affiliation: causes, characteristics, and legislation regarding breaches of scientific integrity.The Pan African medical journal · 2024Article
- Unveiling the ethical void: Bias in reference citations and its academic ramifications.Current research in physiology · 2024Article
- Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- Should authorship on scientific publications be treated as a right?Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Who counts as an inventor? Seniority and gender in 430,000 biomedical inventor-researcher teams.Nature biotechnology · 2023Article
59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996.
designCross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire.
settingInternational survey of journal authors.
participantsSample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine.
main outcome measuresSelf reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles.
resultsA total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P = 0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P = 0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P = 0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials.
conclusionsEvidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.
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.