There are several discussions regarding the types of authorship irregularities of scientific articles that become more abusive and more frequent: gift author, guest author, pressured author, ghost author... Some define a ghost author as "a person who has made an important contribution to the research or writing of a manuscript but is not named as an author." (Pain Medicine 2015; 16: 416–420). Today, I invite you to think about what kind of situations ghost authors can occur in, and how do you think authors and editors can deal when identifying such situation. Share your opinion!
I have been working as a Medical Writer for over 10 years and have strongly advocated for GPP (good publication practices) of the ISMPP with all my clients and authors. In our profession, we deal with such things by informing with the IMCJE, EMWA, AMWA and ISMPP documentation. The situation is often that authors and persons in the funding entities are not always aware of ethics in publication, but they correct the previously unknown violation every time upon being informed. In fact, I consider that guest and gift authorship occur more often, and mostly as a result of ignorance. I believe that all persons involved in scientific publication should spread GPP in all forums and occasions within their institutions.
Dear Blanca Piedrafita, you are right about GPP. Thank you for your providential contribution to the discussion and to share about the authorship committee.
I would be more worried about gift / guest authorship than ghost authorship.
Ghost authors are normally included in the acknowledgement statement of the manuscript. Also, some contributors may intentionally request to be excluded from the author list in a paper they contributed to.
There are many reasons why a contributor would want to be excluded from the author list in a paper they contributed to.
Such reasons include conflict of interest, financial interest,
reputation concerns, journal selection issues, university policy, etc
Dear Peterson K. Ozili , thank you very much for your contribution. I agree and disagree at some points... I agree regarding gift and guest author concerns and possible situations you said for ghost author. However, I think a ghost author is equal or more severe once it seriously affects the authorship rights of the researcher. Regarding reputation concern, I think it is not correct, If that author significantly contributed to the article (e.g. written topics of the article), your name should not be removed or forgotten. Yet, you are right, to make the matter worse, there are some gift authors instead of the author who really contributed to the article, that in turn become a ghost author. In addition, people would be worried about researchers who care more about political value than the scientific value of another researcher... May I would ask myself: "what kind of science is this person doing to need to have that kind of posture?". In some cases, the name of an author is excluded based on these reasons, even the person who worked on it and the author responsible used the portions written by a ghost author, for example. I think it can be very unethical and disrespectful with the who has significantly contributted to the article.
Dear Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho , COPE has discussion on gift authorship.
The editorial team at a journal noticed that an author had high submission and publication rates. Internet checks revealed that the author, an institute board member and department head, was publishing a total of 50 to 100 articles per year. This high productivity raised suspicions that the author was not always fulfilling the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship...
https://publicationethics.org/case/prolific-authors
COPE flowcharts offer a step by step process for practical use by editors. The authorship and contributorship flowcharts include guidance on: changes in authorship; ghost, guest or gift authorship; how to recognise potential authorship problems...
Dear @Ljubomir Jacić thank you for your valuable contribution to discussion. In time, I was usually facing a reality in which a researcher has its recognition/value in a scientific medium measured by its number of publications/year and not only by quality or citations. Good to know about COPE. Good to know some think diffrent.
It is my pleasure dear Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho . Thanks a lot. The most of my time in different discussion rooms is devoted to sharing of important resources related to research questions.
Dear Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho , this is fine article from Retraction watch about two "researchers" Jun Iwamoto and Yoshihiro Sato, who now sit in positions 3 and 4 of our leaderboard of retractions, Sato with more than 100...
Almost all of the papers co-authored by Sato and Iwamoto featured gift authorship...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/05/20/the-notices-are-utterly-unhelpful-a-look-at-how-journals-have-handled-allegations-about-hundreds-of-papers/
If the ghost author is not listed as an author in the first place, I see no problem. I see no reason why Editors will suggest an author for a manuscript. There is a lot of this in Nigeria. Some authors are studying for their Ph.Ds, and are also lecturing, are involved in one or more administrative responsibilities. It baffles me that by May 2021 for instance they already have more than fifteen articles. I keep asking how they do it. Remember they are still under training. Perhaps, it is not very clear to many Journals and their editors what qualify for authorship. I read the "Vancouver criteria" established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 1988. It specifies that authors must do all of four things to qualify: play a part in designing or conducting experiments or processing results; help to write or revise the manuscript; approve the published version; and take responsibility for the article’s contents. Aside from these, the rest are ghost authors. If also any author takes part in three out of four, their authorship status stand disqualified. Please see this link for very interesting detail: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8
Dear Maurice Ekpenyong , thanks for your contribution. I do remember this article. Have you checked the database of authors in this article? I have attached it, if someone is interested. There are many members of RG community that are listed in this file. They publish artcles every five days. Many of those articles are retracted.
Dear Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho
when the authors are weak this phenomenon occur.
):
Authorship disputes are rife. Nature speaks to researchers, publishers and funders about formative collaborations that saw career-defining contributions to papers downplayed, and describes steps that researchers can take to mitigate tensions that might arise in collaborations. One suggestion is to have a scientific ‘pre-nup’, or team charter, that spells out roles, responsibilities and processes for conflict resolution in advance...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01574-y
Dear @Ljubomir jacić. I have been reading the other article of Nature shared by Professor Maurice and I was such surprised and its bring us to thinking. Sure, I have been also checking the names in the sheet and supplementary material with the e-mail answears. Such interesting and useful this very recently article of Nature you are now sharing with us. Certainly, it will be the next reading. Thank you again for this valuable and timely contribution I think will help many of us. Very grateful.
The results of an analysis “suggest ‘authorship inflation’ in letters published in scientific journals.”
Overall, the results clarify the role of letters in post-publication review. They also suggest “authorship inflation” in letters published in scientific journals...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-021-04068-w
Should a researcher who was no longer at an institution when a study began be a co-author?
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/28/should-a-researcher-who-was-no-longer-at-an-institution-when-a-study-began-be-a-co-author/
Dear @Ljubomir Jacić. Many thanks again for sharing this with us. I think this matter fill very much lacks of this discussion regarding ghost author. Such Interesting. I am even following 'Retraction Watch' now.
“Ghost authorship”, defined as the failure to identify someone who is a substantial contributor to the research or written manuscript as an author, is condemned as unethical. On the other hand, professional medical writing assistance is an ethical and legitimate practice, permitted when appropriately acknowledged, and enhances the manuscript’s quality. Ironically, “non-experts” such as medical students are subjected to being ghost authors after working on projects, with no compensation for the students’ time and efforts. Such instances of denial of recognition, in the form of “gift authorship” and “ghost authorship” are unethical practices that demotivate medical students from undertaking any further research activity...
https://ijme.in/articles/do-authorship-disputes-deter-indian-medical-students-from-pursuing-research/
Dear Anna Paula Azevedo De Carvalho , how about this authorship?
Introducing two sites that claim to sell authorships on scientific papers
The site in Iran, Teziran.org, claims to offer a variety of services, from help with immigration issues to scientific training. What caught our eye in particular was a section of the site (pictured above) that lists a number of “articles ready for acceptance”...
The company lists dozens of articles whose authorships they say are up for grabs, with fees starting at $650 USD...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/09/07/introducing-two-sites-that-claim-to-sell-authorships-on-scientific-papers/
Don’t make early career researchers ‘ghost authors! Give them a deserved credit! Fine experience.
"Based on my contribution, I should have been included as an author. Then I discovered the group had published other papers about our work without even acknowledging me. I had become a ghost author, my contributions used without credit..."
https://www.science.org/content/article/don-t-make-early-career-researchers-ghost-authors-give-us-credit-we-deserve
Ghost authorship is the failure of system to identify the author of an article. Mostly it occurs with contributors who sporadically interact with research networks or publish articles in indexed journals.
The National Institute for Ocean Science (Ifremer) in France has flagged 11 papers on PubPeer for concerns including faked authorship and plagiarism, and has blasted the journals involved for their failure to adequately address the unethical work...
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/02/03/french-ocean-institute-goes-public-about-authors-who-forged-their-researchers-names/
When Marianne Alunno-Bruscia, the research integrity officer at France’s national oceanographic science institute, uncovered nearly a dozen papers with fraudulent authorship, she thought she’d stumbled on something bizarre.
She didn’t know how right she was...
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/22/will-the-real-tim-chen-please-stand-up-a-trip-down-the-rabbit-hole-of-deceit/
Article Hazard Data Analysis for Underwater Vehicles by Submarine Casualties
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing