Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36103484›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Perish and publish: Dynamics of biomedical publications by deceased authors.

Chol-Hee Jung, Paul C Boutros, Daniel J Park, Niall M Corcoran, Bernard J Pope, Christopher M Hovens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chol-Hee JungMelbourne Bioinformatics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Paul C BoutrosDepartment of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
Daniel J ParkMelbourne Bioinformatics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Niall M CorcoranDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Bernard J PopeMelbourne Bioinformatics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4840-1095
Christopher M HovensDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0610-1289
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
Advancing method benchmarking and data sharing through crowd-sourced competitions in cancer researchU24CA248265 · NCI · SAGE BIONETWORKS · PI BOUTROS, PAUL CHRISTOPHER, VARMA, SUSHEEL · 2020 to 2024
$4.1M
Development of Protein Biomarkers in Post-DRE Urine for use in Liquid Biopsy of Prostate CancerU01CA214194 · NCI · EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI BOUTROS, PAUL CHRISTOPHER, KISLINGER, THOMAS · 2016 to 2021
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS U01 CA214194NCI NIH HHS U24 CA248265
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted.

Indexed as

AuthorshipPublishingEuropeHumansPeer ReviewPubMed

Identifiers

PMID36103484
PMCPMC9473445
OpenAlexW4295709324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.