Rationale and Objectives
To analyze the pattern and longitudinal evolution of honorary authorship in major radiology journals.
Materials and Methods
In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of original research articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology , the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging , and Radiology during 2 years (July 2014 through June 2016). Questions addressed the perception of honorary authorship and contributing factors, as well as demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ2 tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship.
Results
Of 1839 first authors, 315 (17.3%) responded. Of these, 31.4% (97/309) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship and 54.3% (159/293) stated that one or more coauthors performed only “nonauthor” tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria. Of eight factors significantly associated with the perception of honorary authorship on univariate analysis, two were retained by the stepwise multivariate model: having someone suggest adding an author and a coauthor performing only a nonauthorship task.
Conclusion
There has been little variation in the perception of honorary authorship among first authors of original research articles in radiology. The suggestion of adding an author and having coauthors performing only nonauthorship tasks are the two most important risk factors for honorary authorship. Our findings indicate that a prolonged course of transformation of current cultural norms is required to decrease honorary authorship.
Introduction
Honorary authorship is a major ethical problem for biomedical journals . In radiology, our two studies showed substantial rates of perceived honorary authorship among first authors of original articles in major journals and an even higher frequency of first authors indicating that one or more coauthors performed only “nonauthor” tasks according to the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) . A journal editorial decried the practice of honorary authorship, suggesting a change in the internal culture of radiology departments, and the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology unanimously endorsed the ICMJE guidelines for authorship, with its members pledging to ensure that colleagues in the institutions and departments fully adhere to them.
The purpose of this study was to analyze the pattern and longitudinal evolution of honorary authorship in major radiology journals.
Materials and Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Survey Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Data Analysis and Statistical Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
TABLE 1
Factors Influencing the Perception of Honorary Authorship
Perception of Honorary Authorship Yes No_P_ value Awareness of issue .691 Yes 66/215 (30.70%) 149/215 (69.30%) No 31/94 (32.98%) 63/94 (67.02%) Asked to add honorary author <.001 Yes 31/37 (83.78%) 6/37 (16.23%) No 66/272 (24.26%) 206/272 (75.74%) Only nonauthorship tasks <.001 Yes 73/158 (46.20%) 85/158 (53.80%) No 15/133 (11.28%) 118/133 (88.72%) Department head automatic author <.001 Yes 37/73 (50.68%) 36/73 (49.32%) No 60/236 (25.42%) 176/236 (74.58%) Following International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines <.001 Yes 43/204 (21.08%) 161/204 (78.92%) No 43/79 (54.43%) 36/79 (45.57%) Publishing ethics course .048 Yes 27/116 (23.28%) 89/116 (76.72%) No 59/173 (34.10%) 114/173 (65.90%) Number of authors .144 <7 50/175 (28.57%) 125/175 (71.43%) >8 45/123 (36.59%) 78/123 (63.41%)
Note that the P value is for testing the null hypothesis that the two conditional probabilities are the same, eg, probability (perception of honorary authorship = yes/awareness of issue = yes) = probability (perception of honorary authorship = yes/awareness of issue = no). With the P value of .691, the two observed conditional probability estimates of 30.70% and 32.98% are not statistically different.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
TABLE 2
Factors Influencing the Perception of Honorary Authorship
Perception of Honorary Authorship Yes No_P_ value Journal .014 American Journal of Roentgenology 19/77 (24.68) 58/77 (75.32%) European Radiology 32/76 (42.11%) 44/76 (57.99%) Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 23/57 (40.35%) 34/57 (59.65%) Radiology 23/98 (23.47%) 75/98 (76.53%) Academic title .024 Assistant professor or lower 55/155 (35.48%) 100/155 (64.52%) Associate professor or higher 13/73 (17.81%) 60/73 (82.19%) Years of experience .011 ≤9 74/211 (35.07%) 137/211 (64.93%) >10 11/74 (14.86%) 63/74 (85.14%) Continent of practice .079 North America 27/120 (22.50%) 93/120 (77.50%) Europe 36/111 (32.43%) 75/111 (67.57%) Asia 17/44 (38.64%) 27/44 (61.36%) Continent of training .024 North America 19/97 (19.59%) 78/97 (80.41%) Europe 42/124 (33.87%) 82/124 (66.13%) Asia 19/50 (38.00%) 31/50 (62.00%)
Note that the P value is for testing if the conditional probability of “yes” of the perception of honorary authorship varies across levels of the covariates such as journal type, academic title, years of experience, and continent of practice and training.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
TABLE 3
Multivariate Analysis
Factor Adjusted Odds Ratio \* Suggested to add honorary author 15.3 (5.4 – 43.7) Coauthor performed only nonauthorship task 7.4 (3.4 – 15.8)
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Discussion
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Flanagin A., Carey L.A., Fontanarosa P.B., et. al.: Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998; 280: pp. 222-224.
2. Wislar J.S., Flanagin A., Fontanarosa P.B., et. al.: Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 2011; 343: pp. d6128.
3. Eisenberg R.L., Ngo L., Boiselle P.M., et. al.: Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: assessment of frequency and associated factors. Radiology 2011; 259: pp. 479-486.
4. Eisenberg R.L., Ngo L.H., Bankier A.A.: Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency?. Radiology 2014; 271: pp. 472-478.
5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors : Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research—authorship and contributorship. Philadelphia, PA: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; Available at: http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html Published November 22, 2009
6. Kressel H.Y., Dixon A.K.: Where is the honor in honorary authorship?. Radiology 2011; 259: pp. 479-480.
7. Hricak H., Herold C.J., Krestin G.P.: A statement about authorship from individual members of the International Society for Strategic Studies in Radiology. Radiology 2013; 266: pp. 14-15.
8. Bonekamp S., Halappa V.G., Corona-Villalobos C.P., et. al.: Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR 2012; 198: pp. 1247-1255.
9. Ilakovac V., Fister K., Marusic M., et. al.: Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. CMAJ 2007; 170: pp. 41-46.