Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Protocol

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research

Authors: Reint Meursinge Reynders, Gerben ter Riet, Nicola Di Girolamo, Mario Malički

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.

Methods

Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau² and Chi² tests and I² to quantify inconsistency.

Discussion

The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys.

Systematic review registration

This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.

Available only for authorised users

Patience GS, Galli F, Patience PA, Boffito DC. Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0198117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198117 eCollection 2019.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dance A. Authorship: Who's on first? Nature. 2012;489(7417):591–3.CrossRef

Faulkes Z. Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z eCollection 2018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kornhaber RA, McLean LM, Baber RJ. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:4837–46. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S87585 eCollection 2015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wikipedia Survey. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_(human_research). Accessed 30 Mar 2020.

Wikipedia Health sciences. [online] Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_health_sciences . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals Updated 2019. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) Discussion document: authorship. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_DD_A4_Authorship_SEPT19_SCREEN_AW.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2021.

Kovacs J. Honorary authorship and symbolic violence. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(1):51–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9722-5.CrossRefPubMed

10.

McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Muñoz Nieves C, Matthias L, Niles MT, Alperin JP. Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. Elife. 2019;8:e47338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338.

11.

Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2004089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 eCollection 2018 Mar.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Walker RL, Sykes L, Hemmelgarn BR, Quan H. Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Gadjradj PS, Peul WC, Jalimsing M, Arjun Sharma JRJ, Verhemel A, Harhangi BS. Who should merit co-authorship? An analysis of honorary authorships in leading spine dedicated journals. Spine J. 2020;20(1):121–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2019.08.008.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kayapa B, Jhingoer S, Nijsten T, Gadjradj PS. The prevalence of honorary authorship in the dermatological literature. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(6):1464–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16678.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mahmoudi M. Academic bullies leave no trace. Bioimpacts. 2019;9(3):129–30. https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2019.17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, et al. Researchers' perceptions of ethical authorship distribution in collaborative research teams [published online ahead of print, 2019 Jun 4]. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3.

17.

Eisenberg RL, Ngo LH, Heidinger BH, Bankier AA. Honorary Authorship in Radiologic Research Articles: Assessment of Pattern and Longitudinal Evolution. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(11):1451–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.02.023.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Luiten JD, Verhemel A, Dahi Y, Luiten EJT, Gadjradj PS. Honorary authorships in surgical literature. World J Surg. 2019;43(3):696–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4831-3.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Noruzi A, Takkenberg JJM, Kayapa B, Verhemel A, Gadjradj PS. Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 9]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;S0022-5223(19):32489–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.10.104.CrossRef

20.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Archives. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/archives/ . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

21.

Pupovac V, Fanelli D. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: a meta-analysis of surveys. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1331–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738. Published 2009 May 29. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Aliukonis V, Poškutė M, Gefenas E. Perish or publish dilemma: challenges to responsible authorship. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(3):123. Published 2020 Mar 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56030123.CrossRef

24.

Tarkang EE, Kweku M, Zotor FB. Publication practices and responsible authorship: a review article. J Public Health Afr. 2017;8(1):723. Published 2017 Jun 27. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2017.723.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Welcome. What researchers think about the culture they work in [online] Available from: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/what-researchers-think-about-the-culture-they-work-in.pdf . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

27.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.CrossRef

28.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A^, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRef

29.

Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. (2015) Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:147–53.CrossRef

30.

Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Chapter 5: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ . Accessed 15 Feb 2020.

31.

Open Science Framework (OSF). Available from: https://osf.io/ . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

32.

PROSPERO: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York, UK. Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

33.

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z PMID: 33499930; PMCID: PMC7839230.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Rayyan QRCI. Available from: https://rayyan.qcri.org/welcome . Accessed 23 Apr 2021.

35.

Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, Marshall C, Metzendorf M-I, et al. Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In: JPT H, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

36.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;(372):n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 PMID: 33781993; PMCID: PMC8005925.

38.

Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):573–7.CrossRef

39.

Eysenbach G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.CrossRef

40.

Eysenbach G. Correction: Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(1):e8.CrossRef

41.

Bethlehem J. Chapter 12: A checklist for polls. In: Understanding Public Opinion Polls. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017. ISBN: 978-1498769747.CrossRef

42.

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). Evaluating Survey Quality in Today's Complex Environment. Available from: https://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/Reports/Evaluating-Survey-Quality.aspx . Accessed 24 Apr 2021.

43.

Center for Evidence-Based Management. Critical appraisal of a cross-sectional study (Survey). Available from: https://cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Appraisal-Questions-for-a-Cross-Sectional-Study-July-2014-1.pdf . Accessed 24 Apr 2021.

44.

Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3(3):123–8. Published 2014 Aug 13. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Roever L. Critical appraisal of a questionnaire study. Evid Med Pract. 2015;1:1.e110.

46.

Survey Quality Assessment Framework (SQAF) 2009. Available from: https://ihsn.org/projects/survey-quality-assessment-framework-SQAF . Accessed 24 Apr 2021.

47.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Gibson O, Lisy K, Davy C, et al. Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:71. Published 2015 May 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0261-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

50.

Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

51.

Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, Vos T. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(11):974–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-203104.CrossRefPubMed

52.

StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019.

53.

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, Thomson HJ, Johnston RV. Chapter 9: Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

54.

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley; 2013.CrossRef

55.

Royston P, Altman DG. Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: Parsimonious parametric modelling (with discussion) Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C. 1994;43:429–67.

56.

Royston P, Sauerbrei W. mfpa: Extension of mfp using the ACD covariate transformation for enhanced parametric multivariable modeling. Stata J. 2016;16(1):72–87 PMID: 29398977; PMCID: PMC5796636.CrossRef

57.

Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

58.

Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

59.

Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

60.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9.CrossRef

61.

Eisenberg RL, Ngo LH, Bankier AA. Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency? Radiology. 2014;271(2):472–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131710.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Rajasekaran S, Lo A, Aly AR, Ashworth N. Honorary authorship in postgraduate medical training. Postgrad Med J. 2015;91(1079):501–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133493.CrossRefPubMed

63.

McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, et al. Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2557–60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum B, editor. Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Progress in IS. Cham: Springer; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8. Accessed 6 May 2020.CrossRef

Title: Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research
Authors: Reint Meursinge Reynders
Gerben ter Riet
Nicola Di Girolamo
Mario Malički
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01928-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Sex differences in HIV testing among elders in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol

Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials

COVID-19 prevalence and infection control measures at homeless shelters and hostels in high-income countries: a scoping review

Prevalence of domestic violence in a time of catastrophic disease outbreaks including COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol

Male involvement in family planning use and its determinants in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Correction: The incidence of TB and MDR-TB in pediatrics and therapeutic options: a systematic review