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