Rationale and Objectives
Concerns have been raised about authorship inflation in medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine how the number of authors per radiology article has changed over time with regard to study type and geographic factors.
Materials and Methods
We collected data on study type, authorship count, and the country of the corresponding author for a sample of articles published in Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, and European Radiology in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2013. Only original research and review articles were considered. We computed trends in the mean number of authors per article for each journal and compared authorship trends between study types and geographic region. The study did not involve human subjects and was therefore exempt from institutional board review at our institution.
Results
A total of 682 articles were reviewed, of which 572 were original research articles (83.9%) and 110 review articles (16.1%). The overall number of authors per article doubled from 3.6 in 1980 to 7.3 in 2013 ( P < .001). From 1990 to 2013, the largest absolute increase in authorship count was in Radiology (4.4–8.1, 84.1%, P < .001). The largest increase in authorship occurred in original research articles (3.7–7.8, 111%, P < .001). Although authorship counts were greatest in Asia over most study period, growth in authorship count was highest in Europe.
Conclusions
Authorship count has dramatically increased in radiology journals in the last 3 decades, particularly in original research articles and in Europe.
Despite multiple attempts to create and revise authorship guidelines for scientific literature, the perception of honorary authorship remains high in radiology. Honorary authorship has been defined as the intentional assignment of authorship to an individual who did not meet the criteria for authorship as established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) . Eisenberg et al surveyed 392 first authors of all original research articles in Radiology and European Radiology from 2006 to 2009 and found that 102 (26.0%) thought that one or more coauthors did not make enough of a contribution to deserve being included as an author .
Several attempts have been made to limit inappropriate authorship in the scientific literature. In 1985, the ICMJE established its first criteria for authorship . The most recent version was released in 2013 and renamed “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.” The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following criteria: 1) substantial contribution to conception, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the article; 2) drafting the article or critically revising it for important intellectual content; 3) providing final approval of the version to be published; and 4) agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work and ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the article are investigated and resolved. Authors must meet all four criteria, whereas those who contribute to the article but do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged .
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Methods
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Results
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Table 1
Distribution of Study Type, Three Major Radiology Journals, 1980–2013
Articles by Year Overall Radiology AJR European Radiology 1980 Total articles, n 117 74 43 ∗ Original research, n (% of total) 101 (86) 65 (88) 36 (84) ∗ Review articles, n (% of total) 16 (14) 9 (12) 7 (16) ∗ 1990/91 Total articles, n 174 106 50 18 Original research, n (% of total) 165 (95) 100 (94) 47 (94) 18 (100) Review articles, n (% of total) 9 (5) 6 (6) 3 (6) 0 (0) 2000 Total articles, n 190 82 67 41 Original research, n (% of total) 139 (73) 65 (79) 52 (78) 22 (54) Review articles, n (% of total) 51 (27) 17 (21) 15 (22) 19 (46) 2013 Total articles, n 201 63 69 69 Original research, n (% of total) 167 (83) 56 (89) 44 (64) 67 (97) Review articles, n (% of total) 34 (17) 7 (11) 25 (36) 2 (3)
AJR, American Journal of Roentgenology.
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
Mean Number of Authors per Article by Year
Year Overall_P_ Value Radiology_P_ Value AJR_P_ Value European Radiology_P_ Value 1980 3.6 — 3.5 — 3.7 — ∗ — 1990/91 4.4 .03 4.3 .59 4.1 1.00 5.8 — 2000 5.7 <.001 6.0 <.001 5.7 <.001 4.9 .971 2013 7.3 <.001 8.1 <.001 5.7 <.001 8.2 .005
AJR, American Journal of Roentgenology.
P value refers to comparison of average authorship count in a given year to 1980.
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
Mean Number of Authors per Publication Study Type per Year
Year Original Research Review Articles No. of Articles Mean No. of Authors_P_ Value No. of Articles Mean No. of Authors_P_ Value 1980 101 3.7 — 16 3.0 — 1990/91 165 4.5 .009 9 2.8 .82 2000 139 6.2 <.001 51 4.3 .05 2013 167 7.8 <.001 34 4.9 .006
P value refers to comparison of average authorship count in a given year to 1980.
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<
Conclusions
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<
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. 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.
2. Guidelines on authorship. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. British medical journal 1985; 291: pp. 722.
3. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. 2013. (Accessed 10/04/2014, at http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf )
4. Probyn L.J., Asch M.R., Proto A.V.: The effect of changes in guidelines for authorship on current radiology publications. Radiology 2000; 215: pp. 615-616.
5. Proto A.V.: Radiology–1998 and the future. Radiology 1998; 206: pp. 1-2.
6. Berquist T.H.: Authorship: did I really contribute?. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: pp. 915-916.
7. Kressel H.Y., Dixon A.K.: Where is the honor in honorary authorship?. Radiology 2011; 259: pp. 324-327.
8. 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.
9. Slone R.M.: Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. AJR American journal of roentgenology 1996; 167: pp. 571-579.
10. Levsky M.E., Rosin A., Coon T.P., et. al.: A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995-2005. Southern medical journal 2007; 100: pp. 371-375.
11. Rennie D., Flanagin A.: Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Jama 1994; 271: pp. 469-471.
12. Berquist T.H.: Authorship creep: do we need a new process. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: pp. 599-600.
13. Chew F.S.: The scientific literature in diagnostic radiology for American readers: a survey and analysis of journals, papers, and authors. AJR American journal of roentgenology 1986; 147: pp. 1055-1061.
14. Rennie D., Yank V., Emanuel L.: When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. Jama 1997; 278: pp. 579-585.
15. Bhargavan M., Sunshine J.H.: The growing size of radiology practices. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2008; 5: pp. 801-805.
16. Meghea C., Sunshine J.H.: How much do radiologists and radiation oncologists specialize?. Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 2005; 2: pp. 906-913.
17. Hwang S.S., Song H.H., Baik J.H., et. al.: Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Radiology 2003; 226: pp. 16-23.
18. Angell M.: Publish or perish: a proposal. Annals of internal medicine 1986; 104: pp. 261-262.
19. de Sa P., Sagar A.: “Struck” by fraud?. Science 1996; 274: pp. 1593.
20. Kassirer J.P.: Authorship criteria. Science 1995; 268: pp. 785-786.
21. Relman A.S.: New “Information for Authors” and readers. The New England journal of medicine 1990; 323: pp. 56.
22. Glass R.M.: New information for authors and readers. Group authorship, acknowledgements, and rejected manuscripts. Jama 1992; 268: pp. 99.
23. Culliton B.J.: Coping with fraud: the Darsee Case. Science 1983; 220: pp. 31-35.
24. Smith J.: Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice?. Bmj 1994; 309: pp. 1456-1457.