Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications

Area of Science:

• Nursing Research
• Scholarly Publishing Ethics
• Medical Ethics

Background:

• Honorary and ghost authorship present ethical challenges in academic publishing.
• Prevalence and impact of inappropriate authorship in nursing scholarship require investigation.
• Understanding editors' experiences is crucial for addressing authorship issues.

Purpose of the Study:

• Assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in leading nursing journals (2010-2012).
• Compare these findings with prevalence reported in high-impact medical journals.
• Evaluate the experiences of nursing editors with honorary and ghost authorship.

Main Methods:

• Survey of corresponding authors from 10 nursing journals regarding coauthor contributions against International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria.
• Survey of International Academy of Nursing Editors members on identifying honorary/ghost authors in submitted manuscripts.

Main Results:

• Prevalence of honorary authorship was 42% and ghost authorship was 27.6% in nursing journals.
• These rates are higher than those reported in medical journals.
• Qualitative themes included lack of awareness, need for discussion, toleration of transgressions, power dynamics, and avoidance of scrutiny. Editors identified honorary (36.7%) and ghost (21.7%) authors.

Conclusions:

• Inappropriate authorship is a significant issue in scholarly nursing publications.
• Maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of nursing scholarship necessitates adherence to ethical authorship practices.
• Dissemination and implementation of ethical authorship guidelines by editors, leaders, and faculty are essential for professional advancement.