Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews
Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/jama.287.21.2769
复制
发表时间：
2002-06-05
影响因子：
120.7
通讯作者：
Bero, LA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mowatt, G;Shirran, L;Bero, LA
确定Cochrane综述中名誉作者和幽灵作者的普遍程度，作者身份如何分配，以及作者和Cochrane编辑团队的贡献方式。方法采用基于网络的自我管理调查，邀请1999年Cochrane图书馆第1期和第2期发表的577篇综述的通讯作者报告荣誉作者和幽灵作者的流行程度，署名作者和Cochrane编辑团队成员的贡献，以及确定作者身份的方法。共收到362篇综述的回复（63%的回复率），其中作者913人。结果141篇评论（39%）有证据表明有名誉作者，32篇（9%）有证据表明有幽灵作者（最常见的是Cochrane编辑团队的成员），9篇（2%）既有名誉作者也有幽灵作者。编辑团队以各种各样的方式贡献了301篇评论（83%）。在大多数评论中，作者身份由一组作者（31%）或第一作者（25%）决定。在大多数评论中，作者顺序是根据贡献来分配的（76%）。署名中列出的三个功能贡献最大的是评估纳入研究的质量（83%），解释数据（82%）和从纳入研究中提取数据（77%）。结论：相当比例的评论有证据表明是名誉作者或代作者。Cochrane的编辑团队贡献了大多数Cochrane综述。
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.