同行评审医学期刊中存在名誉作者和代笔作者文章的比例。

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.

作者信息

Flanagin A, Carey L A, Fontanarosa P B, Phillips S G, Pace B P, Lundberg G D, Rennie D

机构信息

JAMA, Chicago, Ill 60610, USA.

出版信息

JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.222.

DOI:10.1001/jama.280.3.222

PMID:9676661

Abstract

CONTEXT

Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation.

DESIGN

Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors.

RESULTS

Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (1 9%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88).

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.

摘要

背景

生物医学出版物中的作者身份确立了责任、义务和荣誉。作者身份的不当使用破坏了作者身份体系的完整性，但关于其流行程度的准确数据有限。

目的

确定同行评审医学期刊中存在荣誉作者（被列为作者但未满足作者标准的人）和幽灵作者（未被列为作者但对研究工作有重大贡献的人）的文章的比例，并确定与这种作者身份不当使用相关的期刊特征和文章类型。

设计

邮寄、自我填写、保密的调查问卷。

参与者

1996年在3种同行评审、发行量较大的综合医学期刊（《内科学年鉴》《美国医学会杂志》和《新英格兰医学杂志》）以及3种同行评审、发行量较小且发表增刊的期刊（《美国心脏病学杂志》《美国医学杂志》和《美国妇产科学杂志》）上发表文章的809位通讯作者（共调查1179位，回复率69%）。

主要观察指标

通讯作者报告的存在荣誉作者和幽灵作者的文章比例。

结果

809篇文章中，492篇为原创研究报告，240篇为综述及未报告原始数据的文章，77篇为社论。共有156篇文章（19%）有荣誉作者的迹象（各期刊比例范围为11% - 25%）；93篇文章（11%）有幽灵作者的迹象（各期刊比例范围为7% - 16%）；13篇文章（2%）两者都有迹象。综述文章中存在荣誉作者的比例高于研究文章（优势比[OR]，1.8；95%置信区间[CI]，1.2 - 2.6），但发行量较大和较小的期刊之间差异无统计学意义（OR，1.4；95% CI，0.96 - 2.03）。与发行量较大期刊中的同类文章相比，发行量较小期刊中有幽灵作者的文章更可能是综述（OR，4.2；95% CI，1.5 - 13.5），而不太可能是研究文章（OR，0.49；95% CI，0.27 - 0.88）。