- Framework of problems / Objective
- Guest / gift / ghost authorship
- More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare
| Ref ID | 598 |
| First Author | S. Gulen |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)30591-6/fulltext |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Author Transparency Influence General medical Team |
| Problem(s) |
Guest / gift / ghost authorship |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 666 |
| Summary of Findings | 41% of respondents (271/666) reported the existence of gift authors. Frequent reasons to include a gift author were ‘‘because it was expected (41%),’’ ‘‘as a gesture/personal favour (10%),’’ and ‘‘to boost his/her profile (9%).’’ The prevalence of ghost authors was 2% (14/666). Frequent reasons to include a ghost author were ‘‘he/she did not want to be credited with an authorship (9/14)’’ and ‘‘he/she was not offered authorship (3/14).’’ |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |