ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Authorship transparency and equity in otolaryngology and maxillofacial surgery: current practices and the potential impact of large language models.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe determination of authorship order in scientific publications is critical for researcher recognition and career progression. According to a recent survey's meta-analysis, the prevalence of Honorary Authorship reaches 20% of authors. This study evaluates the adoption and proficency of authorship guidelines in maxillofacial surgery and otolaryngology.
methodsOn March 16, 2024, a search of Scopus-indexed journals identified relevant journals in from which recent articles were sampled using a stratified random method. The author contribution alignment with actual authorship was evaluated through CalculAuthor tool and a detailed process involving large language models (LLM) and manual checks, employing statistical tests to evaluate the adoption of author contribution guidelines and agreement scores across different fields and journal quartiles.
resultsA review of 21 Scopus-indexed journals revealed that 8 adhered to the CRediT system, 7 to other systems, and 6 had no guidelines. From 147 randomly selected manuscripts, 57 reported contributions (38.8%). The mean agreement score was 65.3% (SD = 26.8), without significant differences in journal quartiles or disciplines.
conclusionsThis study highlights the moderate to low adoption of standardized contribution systems in maxillofacial and otolaryngology journals, with a fair level of agreement between reported contributions and actual authorship. Future research should focus on larger, more diverse samples and develop prospective implementations to ensure accurate and equitable authorship credit in the context of the Artificial Intelligence's scientific writing era.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39702804What 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.