Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility and credit1. A survey undertaken by Flanagin et al1 found that a substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrated evidence of honorary or ghost authorship. Although Jadad et al2 found that reviews in MEDLINE included more authors than Cochrane reviews, little information is known about the extent of honorary or ghost authorship in Cochrane systematic reviews.
Objectives: To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane systematic reviews and the various ways in which the authors and also the Cochrane editorial bases contribute to reviews published in The Cochrane Library.
Methods: Primary contact persons of each Cochrane review published in Issue 2 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited by email to complete, on behalf of their co-reviewers, a 29 question electronic, Web-based questionnaire. This questionnaire was adapted from one used by Flanagin et al1 in a survey of authors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Primary contact persons with no email access were sent a paper copy of the questionnaire.
Progress to date: In March 2000, primary contacts of 577 reviews were invited to complete the questionnaire on behalf of their co-reviewers. As at 31 May 2000, 234 (40%) of primary contacts had completed the questionnaire on behalf of their co-reviewers (over 600 reviewers in total). From the responses received so far, 78% of reviewers were involved in all three aspects of (a) the conception and planning, and (b) the conduct, and (c) the writing up of their reviews. Fifteen per cent of reviewers were involved in two out of three of the above, and six per cent of reviewers were involved in only one aspect - either (a) the conception and planning, or (b) the conduct, or (c) the writing up of their reviews.
References: 1. 1Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace PB, Lundberg GD, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222-4. 2. 2Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80.
Objectives: To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane systematic reviews and the various ways in which the authors and also the Cochrane editorial bases contribute to reviews published in The Cochrane Library.
Methods: Primary contact persons of each Cochrane review published in Issue 2 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited by email to complete, on behalf of their co-reviewers, a 29 question electronic, Web-based questionnaire. This questionnaire was adapted from one used by Flanagin et al1 in a survey of authors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Primary contact persons with no email access were sent a paper copy of the questionnaire.
Progress to date: In March 2000, primary contacts of 577 reviews were invited to complete the questionnaire on behalf of their co-reviewers. As at 31 May 2000, 234 (40%) of primary contacts had completed the questionnaire on behalf of their co-reviewers (over 600 reviewers in total). From the responses received so far, 78% of reviewers were involved in all three aspects of (a) the conception and planning, and (b) the conduct, and (c) the writing up of their reviews. Fifteen per cent of reviewers were involved in two out of three of the above, and six per cent of reviewers were involved in only one aspect - either (a) the conception and planning, or (b) the conduct, or (c) the writing up of their reviews.
References: 1. 1Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace PB, Lundberg GD, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222-4. 2. 2Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80.