Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{c2101529a2e64d30af75cfc2784c70eb,
title = "More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine the prevalence of gift and ghost authors in Cochrane reviews and to investigate possible predictors of gift authorship. Study Design and Setting: An Internet-based survey was sent in April 2019 to 1,226 first authors of Cochrane reviews published between October 2016 and December 2018. Three reminders were sent. Responses were anonymized before data extraction. Results: A total of 666 of 1,226 (54%) first authors completed the survey. The prevalence of gift authors was 41% and 2% reported ghost authorships. Of the first authors, 15% were not aware of the authorship criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with the existence of gift authorship were: first author was not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23–3.51, P = 0.006), increasing number of authors (P < 0.001), and first author had offered an inappropriate authorship previously in their academic career (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.23–3.13, P = 0.005). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews showed evidence of gift authorship, whereas ghost authorship was less prevalent. Thus, there is a need to increase awareness of this persistent issue in Cochrane reviews.",
keywords = "Authorship, Editorial policies, Guidelines as topic, Methods, Surveys and questionnaires, Systematic reviews as topic",
author = "Seng{\"u}l G{\"u}len and Siv Fonnes and Kristoffer Andresen and Jacob Rosenberg",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2020",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.004",
language = "English",
volume = "128",
pages = "13--19",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

AU - Gülen, Sengül

AU - Fonnes, Siv

AU - Andresen, Kristoffer

AU - Rosenberg, Jacob

N1 - Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020/12

Y1 - 2020/12

N2 - Objectives: To determine the prevalence of gift and ghost authors in Cochrane reviews and to investigate possible predictors of gift authorship. Study Design and Setting: An Internet-based survey was sent in April 2019 to 1,226 first authors of Cochrane reviews published between October 2016 and December 2018. Three reminders were sent. Responses were anonymized before data extraction. Results: A total of 666 of 1,226 (54%) first authors completed the survey. The prevalence of gift authors was 41% and 2% reported ghost authorships. Of the first authors, 15% were not aware of the authorship criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with the existence of gift authorship were: first author was not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23–3.51, P = 0.006), increasing number of authors (P < 0.001), and first author had offered an inappropriate authorship previously in their academic career (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.23–3.13, P = 0.005). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews showed evidence of gift authorship, whereas ghost authorship was less prevalent. Thus, there is a need to increase awareness of this persistent issue in Cochrane reviews.

AB - Objectives: To determine the prevalence of gift and ghost authors in Cochrane reviews and to investigate possible predictors of gift authorship. Study Design and Setting: An Internet-based survey was sent in April 2019 to 1,226 first authors of Cochrane reviews published between October 2016 and December 2018. Three reminders were sent. Responses were anonymized before data extraction. Results: A total of 666 of 1,226 (54%) first authors completed the survey. The prevalence of gift authors was 41% and 2% reported ghost authorships. Of the first authors, 15% were not aware of the authorship criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with the existence of gift authorship were: first author was not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23–3.51, P = 0.006), increasing number of authors (P < 0.001), and first author had offered an inappropriate authorship previously in their academic career (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.23–3.13, P = 0.005). Conclusion: A substantial proportion of Cochrane reviews showed evidence of gift authorship, whereas ghost authorship was less prevalent. Thus, there is a need to increase awareness of this persistent issue in Cochrane reviews.

KW - Authorship

KW - Editorial policies

KW - Guidelines as topic

KW - Methods

KW - Surveys and questionnaires

KW - Systematic reviews as topic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090111154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.004

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32781115

VL - 128

SP - 13

EP - 19

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -

ID: 60646133