You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 287 No. 21, June 5, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Authorship and Contributorship
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (28)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati
What's this?

Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews

Graham Mowatt, MBA; Liz Shirran, MSc; Jeremy M. Grimshaw, MBChB,PhD; Drummond Rennie, MD; Annette Flanagin, RN,MA; Veronica Yank, BA; Graeme MacLennan, BSc(Hons); Peter C. Gøtzsche, DrMedSci; Lisa A. Bero, PhD

JAMA. 2002;287:2769-2771.

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.


Author Affiliations: Health Services Research Unit (Dr Grimshaw and Messrs Mowatt and MacLennan) and Department of General Practice and Primary Care (Ms Shirran), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; JAMA, Chicago, Ill (Dr Rennie and Ms Flanagin); Institute for Health Policy Studies and School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Rennie and Ms Yank); Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark (Dr Gøtzsche); and Institute for Health Policy Studies and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (Dr Bero).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies—Reply
Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa
JAMA. 2008;300(8):905-906.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

'Ghostbusting' at Blood
Dunbar and Tallman
Blood 2009;113:502-503.
FULL TEXT  

Guest Authorship, Mortality Reporting, and Integrity in Rofecoxib Studies--Reply
DeAngelis and Fontanarosa
JAMA 2008;300:905-906.
FULL TEXT  

Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation
Ross et al.
JAMA 2008;299:1800-1812.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Authorship of research papers: ethical and professional issues for short-term researchers.
Newman and Jones
J. Med. Ethics 2006;32:420-423.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Writing It Up: A Step-by-Step Guide to Publication for Beginning Investigators.
Kliewer
J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2006;34:53-59.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Writing It Up: A Step-by-Step Guide to Publication for Beginning Investigators
Kliewer
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005;185:591-596.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research
Mirowski and Van Horn
Social Studies of Science 2005;35:503-548.
ABSTRACT  

The scandal of unfair behaviour of senior faculty
Wagena
J. Med. Ethics 2005;31:308-308.
FULL TEXT  

Dancing with the Devil? A personal view of psychiatry's relationships with the pharmaceutical industry
Shooter
Psychiatr. Bull. 2005;29:81-83.
FULL TEXT  

Increasing the trust in scientific authorship
LAGNADO
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;183:3-4.
FULL TEXT  

Is academic psychiatry for sale?
Healy and Thase
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;182:388-390.
FULL TEXT  

Authorship for Research Groups
Flanagin et al.
JAMA 2002;288:3166-3168.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.