Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors
Objectives To investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.Design A cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participants Corresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020-09-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036899.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850082637386874880 |
|---|---|
| author | Sara Schroter Tobias Kurth Ilaria Montagni M Eikermann Elke Schäffner |
| author_facet | Sara Schroter Tobias Kurth Ilaria Montagni M Eikermann Elke Schäffner |
| author_sort | Sara Schroter |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives To investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.Design A cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participants Corresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results 3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were ‘very familiar’ with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’ encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).Conclusions Despite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6600c088e9b34fe4958de8e7386fd49f |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-09-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-6600c088e9b34fe4958de8e7386fd49f2025-08-20T02:44:28ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552020-09-0110910.1136/bmjopen-2020-036899Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authorsSara Schroter0Tobias Kurth1Ilaria Montagni2M Eikermann3Elke Schäffner4senior researcherprofessorBordeaux Population Health, Université de Bordeaux, Talence, FranceDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USAInstitute of Public Health, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, GermanyObjectives To investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.Design A cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participants Corresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results 3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were ‘very familiar’ with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’ encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).Conclusions Despite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036899.full |
| spellingShingle | Sara Schroter Tobias Kurth Ilaria Montagni M Eikermann Elke Schäffner Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors BMJ Open |
| title | Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors |
| title_full | Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors |
| title_fullStr | Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors |
| title_full_unstemmed | Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors |
| title_short | Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors |
| title_sort | awareness usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines an international survey of biomedical authors |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e036899.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT saraschroter awarenessusageandperceptionsofauthorshipguidelinesaninternationalsurveyofbiomedicalauthors AT tobiaskurth awarenessusageandperceptionsofauthorshipguidelinesaninternationalsurveyofbiomedicalauthors AT ilariamontagni awarenessusageandperceptionsofauthorshipguidelinesaninternationalsurveyofbiomedicalauthors AT meikermann awarenessusageandperceptionsofauthorshipguidelinesaninternationalsurveyofbiomedicalauthors AT elkeschaffner awarenessusageandperceptionsofauthorshipguidelinesaninternationalsurveyofbiomedicalauthors |