Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41979923›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2026

Journal of Global Health's GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN).

Luka Ursić, Harry Campbell, Igor Rudan

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Luka UrsićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Harry CampbellCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Igor RudanCentre for Global Health, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We address the growing concern of requests for post-submission and post-acceptance changes in authorship which our editorial team has observed in recent years. We emphasise that authorship order should be agreed upon by all contributors before submission, as all authors are expected to approve the final version of their manuscript and agree on their respective authorship positions. This editorial identifies seven categories of authorship change requests, ranging from adding or removing ordinary authors to modifying first or last authorship positions, or introducing group authorship. We consider some of these requests legitimate, such as adding author(s) who performed additional analyses based on reviewers' feedback or removing author(s) disagreeing with such revisions. We consider some others indicative of potentially concerning practices, particularly those involving changes to first or last authorship positions. We place this trend within a broader context of questionable research practices, including 'honorary' or 'gift' authorships driven by institutional power dynamics and the more recent emergence of 'paper mills'. These practices seem to be increasing in frequency with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and large publicly available data sets, which have lowered the barriers to producing large volumes of research of questionable value. Existing safeguards developed by organisations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are helpful, but limited in their ability to prevent such practices. To address these challenges, the Journal of Global Health introduces the GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN), which mandate full transparency whenever authorship changes occur after submission. Specifically, in the part of the standard 'acknowledgements' section at the end of each paper, where the mandatory 'authorship contributions' statement is typically detailed, the authors will be required to: (i) declare that the authorship byline has been changed since submission; (ii) disclose precisely what changes to the byline occurred between these two versions; (iii) provide an explanation for this change; and (iv) provide the final authorship contributions accordingly. Supporting documentation will also be archived by our editors and may be shared upon legitimate requests. The GUARDIAN aim to deter misconduct through transparency, protect early-career researchers from authorship pressure, and improve accountability in academic publishing. Together with our previously introduced Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP) and other integrity initiatives, the GUARDIAN represent a proactive effort to safeguard credibility of authorships, while allowing legitimate adjustments whenever they are properly justified.

Indexed as

AuthorshipDisclosureEditorial PoliciesGlobal HealthGuidelines as TopicPeriodicals as TopicPublishingHumans

Identifiers

PMID41979923
PMCPMC13078605

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.