Evaluating Authorship Guidelines of Top Medical Schools and Plastic Surgery Journals: A Comparative Analysis

Authorship in research is crucial for academic recognition and accountability; however, there remain discrepancies throughout institutions regarding authorship inclusion. This review aimed to evaluate the similarities, variations and distinct approaches to authorship criteria. We intend to focus on how guidelines address issues like honorary authorship, authorship order, and the resolution of disagreements.

Authorship criteria from the top 10 NIH-funded medical schools and the top 10 plastic surgery journals as defined by their Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartiles were collected from August 30, 2024, to September 5, 2024.

Our findings revealed significant differences in authorship policies, with medical schools generally providing more comprehensive and educational approaches compared to journals. While most organizations referenced International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria, there was variability in addressing key issues such as ghost and honorary authorship, authorship order determination, and the use of AI in research. Medical schools more frequently defined and prohibited ghost and honorary authorships, offered guidance on authorship order, and provided mechanisms for dispute resolution. Notably, guidelines regarding AI usage in research were largely absent or ambiguous across all organizations.

This study highlights the need for greater standardization and clarity in authorship guidelines, particularly in light of emerging challenges posed by AI and increasingly collaborative research environments. Implementing standardized contribution declaration systems, such as CRediT, could enhance transparency and fairness in authorship attribution. As research practices continue to evolve, regular reassessment and updating of authorship guidelines will be crucial to maintain the integrity of scientific publication in academic medicine.