Courtesy Authorship in Academic Surgery Publications.

John M McClellan, Neel Mansukhani, Donald Moe, Michael Derickson, Stephen Chiu, Melina R Kibbe, Matthew J Martin
Author Information
  1. John M McClellan: Trauma and Emergency Surgery Service, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.
  2. Neel Mansukhani: Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  3. Donald Moe: Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
  4. Michael Derickson: Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
  5. Stephen Chiu: Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  6. Melina R Kibbe: Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
  7. Matthew J Martin: Trauma and Emergency Surgery Service, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

Abstract

Importance: Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown.
Objective: To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia.
Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship.
Results: A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors.
Conclusions and Relevance: Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.

References

  1. J Surg Educ. 2014 Nov-Dec;71(6):851-9 [PMID: 24852601]
  2. Acad Psychiatry. 2017 Aug;41(4):467-470 [PMID: 28643140]
  3. J Fam Pract. 1982 Oct;15(4):663-6 [PMID: 7119691]
  4. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Oct;15(10):963-9 [PMID: 18801021]
  5. Lancet. 1987 Oct 10;2(8563):860 [PMID: 2889063]
  6. JAMA. 2004 Jul 7;292(1):86-8 [PMID: 15238595]
  7. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009 Oct;107(4):1005 [PMID: 19679740]
  8. F1000Res. 2018 Oct 5;7:1605 [PMID: 30647909]
  9. Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):76-90 [PMID: 21390872]
  10. Acad Radiol. 2001 Jun;8(6):533-40 [PMID: 11394549]
  11. Rheumatol Int. 2013 Feb;33(2):277-84 [PMID: 23124697]
  12. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011 Jan-Mar;8(1):36-8 [PMID: 22106597]
  13. JAMA. 2017 Oct 3;318(13):1221-1222 [PMID: 28880990]
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Nov;134(5):838e-844e [PMID: 25347660]
  15. JAMA. 2012 May 2;307(17):1805-6 [PMID: 22550194]
  16. Singapore Med J. 2009 Sep;50(9):847-50 [PMID: 19787167]
  17. Dan Med J. 2012 Mar;59(3):A4390 [PMID: 22381085]
  18. BMJ. 2011 Oct 25;343:d6128 [PMID: 22028479]
  19. World J Surg. 2019 Mar;43(3):696-703 [PMID: 30361745]
  20. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2009 Aug;41(2):127 [PMID: 19620407]
  21. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2769-71 [PMID: 12038907]
  22. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan;31(1):60-7 [PMID: 26173540]
  23. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4 [PMID: 9676661]
  24. MedGenMed. 2007 Jul 19;9(3):16 [PMID: 18092023]
  25. Int J Rheum Dis. 2009 Sep;12(3):183-5 [PMID: 20374344]

MeSH Term

Authorship
Humans
Periodicals as Topic
Publishing
Surgical Procedures, Operative

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0authorsauthorshipcourtesyjournalsfirstseniorimpactfactorhighlowauthorreportedCourtesy244thoughtvscriteriaAlthoughincidencepracticessurgicalacademiaamongtotalrespondents2%adding85P = 4%]pressuresImportance:definedincludingindividualmetfollowstrictcurrentunknownObjective:assessrelatedDesignSettingParticipants:surveyconductedJuly15October272017originalarticlesreviewsclinicaltrialspublished201420158categorizedMainOutcomesMeasures:prevalenceoverallsubgroupswellopinionsregardingResults:203254responded369provideddatasex271men98womenacademicprograms116168[690%]173202[856%]1742surveyedpublications:204%32157115%1087537%131priorpublications3381addedpast45529%decreased93144646%changedincreased03difference29149[195%]19[22addexternalpressuregreater77166[4660167[359%]04lessharmful55114[482%]34117[291%]OverallpositiveoutcomesegimprovedmoraleavoidedconflictsConclusionsRelevance:usecommondifferentperceptionsincludeUnderstandingissueswillleadbettereducationeliminatepracticeAuthorshipAcademicSurgeryPublications

Similar Articles

Cited By