Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Nursing Publications

Maureen Shawn Kennedy · Jane Barnsteiner · John W. Daly

55 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Nursing Scholarship

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism Publishing and Scholarly Communication scientometrics and bibliometrics research

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to (a) assess the prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in 10 leading peer-reviewed nursing journals between 2010 to 2012; (b) compare the results to prevalence reported by authors of articles published in high-impact medical journals; and (c) assess the experiences of editors in the International Academy of Nursing Editors with honorary and guest authorship. METHODS: Corresponding authors of articles published in 10 nursing journals between 2010 and 2012 were invited to complete an online survey about the contributions of coauthors to see if the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors () criteria for authorship were met. Additionally, members of the International Academy of Nursing Editors were invited to complete an online survey about their experiences in identifying honorary or ghost authors in articles submitted for publication. FINDINGS: The prevalence of articles published in 10 nursing journals with honorary authors was 42%, and the prevalence of ghost authorship was 27.6%. This is a greater prevalence than what has been reported among medical journals. Qualitative data yielded five themes: lack of awareness around the rules for authorship; acknowledged need for debate, discussion, and promotion of ethical practice; knowingly tolerating, and sometimes deliberately promoting, transgressions in practice; power relations and expectations; and avoiding scrutiny. Among the 60 respondents to the editor survey, 22 (36.7%) reported identifying honorary authors and 13 (21.7%) reported ghost authors among papers submitted to their publications. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate authorship is a significant problem among scholarly nursing publications. RELEVANCE: If nursing scholarship is to maintain integrity and be considered trustworthy, and if publications are to be a factor in professional advancement, editors, nursing leaders, and faculty need to disseminate and adhere to ethical authorship practices.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals 2002Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews 2004Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication 1985Guidelines on authorship. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Cited by

2019Unethical Authorship in Scientific Publications (A Review of the Problem)2015Evolution of Cooperation Patterns in Psoriasis Research: Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Papers in Medline (1942–2013)2016Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions 2019Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature 2019Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing 2018Authorship grids: Practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication 2017Publishing Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed 2018Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.