Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews

Graham Mowatt, Elizabeth A Shirran, D. Rennie, A. Flanagin, V. Yank, Graeme Stewart MacLennan, P. C. Gotzsche, L. A. Bero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

137 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute.

Methods Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors.

Results One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%).

Conclusions A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2769-2771
Number of pages2
JournalJAMA
Volume287
Issue number21
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • ARTICLES

Cite this

Mowatt, G., Shirran, E. A., Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Yank, V., MacLennan, G. S., ... Bero, L. A. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA, 287(21), 2769-2771. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2769

Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. / Mowatt, Graham; Shirran, Elizabeth A; Rennie, D.; Flanagin, A.; Yank, V.; MacLennan, Graeme Stewart; Gotzsche, P. C.; Bero, L. A.

In: JAMA, Vol. 287, No. 21, 2002, p. 2769-2771.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mowatt, G, Shirran, EA, Rennie, D, Flanagin, A, Yank, V, MacLennan, GS, Gotzsche, PC & Bero, LA 2002, 'Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews', JAMA, vol. 287, no. 21, pp. 2769-2771. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2769
Mowatt G, Shirran EA, Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V, MacLennan GS et al. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2769-2771. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2769
Mowatt, Graham ; Shirran, Elizabeth A ; Rennie, D. ; Flanagin, A. ; Yank, V. ; MacLennan, Graeme Stewart ; Gotzsche, P. C. ; Bero, L. A. / Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. In: JAMA. 2002 ; Vol. 287, No. 21. pp. 2769-2771.
@article{a0cbc333808d4846838a07665674876e,
title = "Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews",
abstract = "Context To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute.Methods Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63{\%} response rate), which contained 913 authors.Results One hundred forty-one reviews (39{\%}) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9{\%}) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2{\%}) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83{\%}). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31{\%}) or lead author (25{\%}) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76{\%}). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83{\%}), interpreting data (82{\%}), and abstracting data from included studies (77{\%}).Conclusions A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.",
keywords = "ARTICLES",
author = "Graham Mowatt and Shirran, {Elizabeth A} and D. Rennie and A. Flanagin and V. Yank and MacLennan, {Graeme Stewart} and Gotzsche, {P. C.} and Bero, {L. A.}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1001/jama.287.21.2769",
language = "English",
volume = "287",
pages = "2769--2771",
journal = "JAMA",
issn = "0098-7484",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "21",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews

AU - Mowatt, Graham

AU - Shirran, Elizabeth A

AU - Rennie, D.

AU - Flanagin, A.

AU - Yank, V.

AU - MacLennan, Graeme Stewart

AU - Gotzsche, P. C.

AU - Bero, L. A.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Context To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute.Methods Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors.Results One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%).Conclusions A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

AB - Context To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute.Methods Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors.Results One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%).Conclusions A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

KW - ARTICLES

U2 - 10.1001/jama.287.21.2769

DO - 10.1001/jama.287.21.2769

M3 - Article

VL - 287

SP - 2769

EP - 2771

JO - JAMA

JF - JAMA

SN - 0098-7484

IS - 21

ER -