[SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS: ON HONORS AND GHOSTS].

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Scientific Publishing
• Academic Research

Background:

• The Sackler Faculty of Medicine ethics committee primarily handles disputes concerning scientific publication authorship.
• These authorship issues arise from the pressure to publish (
• Publish or Perish
• ) for career advancement, funding, and knowledge dissemination.
• Lack of pre-agreed authorship criteria often leads to conflicts.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the types and prevalence of authorship disputes reaching the ethics committee.
• To examine the ethical implications of honorary and ghost authorship in scientific publications.
• To highlight the role of established guidelines in resolving authorship conflicts.

Main Methods:

• Review of case studies presented to the ethics committee.
• Analysis of common authorship disputes, including honorary and ghost authorship.
• Application of existing guidelines from journals, institutions, and editor committees.

Main Results:

• The majority of complaints involve disputed authorship, specifically honorary authorship (undeserved credit) and ghost authorship (uncredited contributions).
• These disputes stem from inadequate planning and unclear authorship agreements.
• Established guidelines provide a framework for addressing these ethical challenges.

Conclusions:

• Authorship disputes are a significant ethical concern in scientific publishing.
• Clear authorship agreements and adherence to guidelines are crucial for preventing conflicts.
• The ethics committee plays a vital role in resolving authorship-related grievances.