Centre for Health Ethics, Law and History, Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020 Mar 12;56(3):123. doi: 10.3390/medicina56030123.
Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: , , and Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.
近年来,有关负责任的作者身份概念和实践及其滥用的争议一直是研究诚信文献中讨论的最突出问题之一。因此,本文旨在探讨导致两种主要类型不道德作者身份的因素,即荣誉作者身份和幽灵作者身份。它还强调了作者身份滥用的负面影响,并对不同的作者身份准则进行了批判性分析,包括最近对医学期刊编辑国际委员会(ICMJE)作者身份定义修正案的辩论。实证研究表明,荣誉作者身份是最违反负责任的作者身份标准的偏差。区分了荣誉作者身份的三种不同模式:、和 。 作者身份滥用在全球和欧洲的流行率高得令人震惊,涵盖了大约三分之一的所有科学出版物。不同健康研究学科之间的作者身份滥用没有显著差异。在北美的研究强调了应对不道德作者身份的最有效手段。这些手段包括出版伦理培训、医学院制定的明确作者身份政策以及明确遵守医学期刊要求的作者身份标准。总之,需要进行更多的实证研究来提高科学家对作者身份滥用高发率的认识。研究诚信培训课程,包括出版伦理和作者身份问题,应纳入医学院学生和年轻研究人员的课程中。最后但同样重要的是,应发起关于负责任的作者身份标准和实践的进一步讨论。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2020-3-12
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014-6-13
J Korean Med Sci. 2018-10-18
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018-4
J Med Ethics. 2013-8-17
Eur J Cancer. 2016-10
Niger Med J. 2025-6-16
J Orthop Case Rep. 2025-7
J Korean Med Sci. 2024-8-5
IBRO Neurosci Rep. 2024-5-26
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2023-2-7
J Korean Med Sci. 2023-12-4
World J Surg. 2019-3
Br J Dermatol. 2018-6
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018-2-27
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017
Clin Anat. 2017-9
Front Psychol. 2016-12-27
Med Health Care Philos. 2017-3
Account Res. 2017