ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016
Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Pooled it
- The art of peer reviewing.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Clarifying middle authorship contributions to reduce abuses in science publishing and assessment of top-ranked SJR biochemistry and pharmacology journals' authorship criteria.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Handling Ethics Dumping and Neo-Colonial Research: From the Laboratory to the Academic Literature.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Does listing of individual contributions in "Mega-Authorship" papers always follow best practice guidelines?Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2021Article
- Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Authorship Not Taught and Not Caught in Undergraduate Research Experiences at a Research University.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Bridging the Gap with Clinicians: The Issue of Underrecognition of Pathologists and Radiologists as Scientific Authors in Contemporary Medical Literature.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Opinion: Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Article
- Gift authorship: An approach to its frequency in a Peruvian journalBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2019Article
- Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Understanding of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria Among Faculty Members of Pharmacy and Other Health Sciences in Jordan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- Trends in the Authorship of Peer Reviewed Publications in the Urology Literature.Urology practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26507204What 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.