Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Authorship* ; Dissent and Disputes ; Ethics ; Humans ; Peer Review* ; Plagiarism ; Publications ; Research Report ; Sexism

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this research was to identify the top 10 most-cited articles on the management of fractured or broken instruments and to perform a bibliometric analysis thereof. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Published articles related to fractured instruments were screened from online databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, and highly cited papers, with at least 50 citations since publication, were identified. The most-cited articles were selected and analysed with regard to publication title, authorship, the journal of publication, year, institution, country of origin, article type, and number of citations. RESULTS: The top 10 most-cited articles were from various journals. Most were published in the Journal of Endodontics, followed by the International Endodontic Journal, and Dental Traumatology. The leading countries were Australia, Israel, Switzerland, the USA, and Germany, and the leading institution was the University of Melbourne. The majority of articles among the top 10 articles were clinical research studies (n = 8), followed by a basic research article and a non-systematic review article. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis revealed interesting information about scientific progress in endodontics regarding fractured instruments. Overall, clinical research studies and basic research articles published in high-impact endodontic journals had the highest citation rates.
Australia ; Authorship ; Bibliometrics ; Endodontics ; Germany ; Israel ; Publications ; Root Canal Preparation ; Switzerland ; Traumatology

OBJECTIVES: Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics (Restor Dent Endod; RDE) is an English-language journal published by the Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry, and it has been online since 2012 with quarterly publications. The purpose of this paper was to review and analyze the publications in this journal since its inception and over the 7-year period from 2012 to 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper assessed the number, type, and subject of articles published, as well as authorship patterns and article citations of the journal over a 7-year period. The citation indicator for the journal (h-index) was assessed using Google Scholar. RESULTS: The number of articles per issue has remained relatively consistent in the 7 years that were analyzed. An analysis of the article types revealed various categories of review articles. Original research articles accounted for the most articles per volume. Twice as many articles per volume were on endodontic topics than on restorative subjects. Articles published in RDE have been widely cited in Synapse, Crossref, and PubMed Central. A country-wise mapping of authors' institutions revealed significant contributions from authors around the world. With an h-index of 24, RDE ranks third among journals in its specialty. The most cited articles were open lectures on statistics and research articles on recent concepts, technology, and materials. CONCLUSION: Over the last 7 years, RDE has served as a platform for a large number of manuscripts in the field of restorative dentistry and endodontics.
Authorship ; Bibliometrics ; Dentistry ; Endodontics ; Lectures ; Phytolacca dodecandra ; Publications ; Synapses

No abstract available.
Authorship

No abstract available.
Authorship

No abstract available.
Authorship ; Crime

PURPOSE: Since endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was first introduced in 1991, it has undergone rapid technical and quantitative developments. We analyzed the characteristics and trends of EVAR research through bibliometric analysis. METHODS: Comprehensive online searches focused on EVAR were performed from January 1994 to August 2017. The following information was collected: title, year of publication, countries' contribution, authorship, subspecialty, institution, subject category, and top 10 cited articles. RESULTS: A significant increase was demonstrated globally in the number of annual publications on EVAR. The highest number of publications was from the United States (n = 849, 35.08%), followed by England (n = 343, 14.17%), and the institutions with highest number of publications were Stanford University (n = 61, 2.52%) and Skane University Hospital Malmo (n = 45, 1.86%). The Journal of Vascular Surgery published approximately one quarter of the total publications. Vascular surgeons produced the most publications (n = 1871, 78.14%), followed by radiologists (n = 377, 15.58%) and cardiologists (n = 73, 3.02%). The most studied topics on EVAR were complications and procedures. The number of publications on complex EVAR and EVAR in juxtarenal aneurysm has increased more from 2013 to 2017 (5.1%, 9.5%) compared with from 1998 to 2002 (2.1%, 1.8%). CONCLUSION: Our bibliometric analysis showed the characteristics and trends of publications on EVAR over a period of 25 years. The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed the quantitative improvements of publications and the qualitative improvements in challenging EVAR.
Aneurysm ; Authorship ; Bibliometrics ; Endovascular Procedures ; England ; Publications ; Surgeons ; United States

Authorship, "the state or fact of being the writer of a book, article, or document, or the creator of a work of art,"1 derives from the word author, auctor, autour, autor "father, creator, one who brings about, one who makes or creates," from Old French auctor, acteor "author, originator, creator, instigator," directly from the Latin auctor "promoter, doer; responsible person, teacher," literally "one who causes to grow."2  It implies a creative privilege and responsibility that cannot be taken lightly.  In the biomedical arena, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) "recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved."3

Thus, all persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify as authors should be so listed.3 The first of these general principles means that all persons listed as authors should meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship; the second principle means that all those who meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship should be listed as authors.3 The first part of the statement disqualifies honorific "gift" authors, complementary "guest" authors, and anonymous "ghost" authors from being listed as authors. The second part ensures the listing of all those who qualify as authors, even if they are no longer part of the institution or group from which the work emanates (such as students who have graduated or residents and fellows who have completed their postgraduate training).

Honorific or "gift" authorship takes place when a subordinate (or junior) person lists a superior (or senior) person as an author, even if that person did not meet the four ICMJE authorship criteria.4,5 Bestowing the gift on a Chief, Chair, Department Head, Director, Dean, or such other person is often done in gratitude, but carries an unspoken expectation that the favor will be returned in the future. It can also be bestowed under coercive conditions (that may overlap with those of guest authorship discussed next).4.5 It is unethical because the gifted person does not qualify for authorship when at most only acknowledgement is his or her due. In the extreme, such a person can be put in the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation of being unable to comment on the supposedly co-authored work when asked to do so. Moreover, the unqualified co-author(s) may actually attempt to wash their hands of any allegations of misconduct, claiming for example that the resident first author "plagiarized the material" or "fabricated or manipulated the data" but "I/we certainly had nothing to do with that" - - hence the fourth criterion for authorship came to be.3 Reviewers and Editors may suspect "gift" authorship when for instance, a resident listed as first author writes the paper in the first person, using the pronoun "I" instead of "we" and thanks the consultant co-author under the "acknowledgements" section. The suspicions are further reinforced when the concerned co-author(s) do not participate in, or contribute to revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content during the review and editing process.

Guest authorship takes place when influential or well-known individuals "lend" their name to a manuscript to boost its prestige, even though they had nothing to do with its creation.6,7 They may have been invited to do so by one or more of the actual authors, but they willingly agree, considering the arrangement mutually-beneficial. Thus, a student or resident may knowingly invite an adviser or consultant to be listed as co-author, even if the latter did not meet authorship criteria. The former perceives that having a known co-author increases the chances of a favorable review and publication; the latter effectively adds another publication to his or her curriculum vitae. It is not difficult to see how such symbioses may thrive in the "publish or perish" milieu of academe. Research advising alone, even if editing of the research paper was performed, do not qualify one for authorship (Cf. "gift" authorship). This is not to say that a research, thesis or dissertation adviser may not be listed as co-author - as long as he or she meets the 4 ICMJE criteria for authorship.3 A related misconduct is the practice by certain persons with seniority of insisting their names be listed first, even if more junior scholars did all the innovative thinking and research on a project. Indeed, the order of authorship can be a source of unhappiness and dispute. Authors be listed in the order of their contributions to the work - the one who contributed most is listed first, and the order of listing should be a joint decision of all co-authors at the start of the study (reviewed periodically).

Ghost authorship usually pertains to paid professional writers who anonymously produce material that is officially attributed to another author.7,8 They may operate out of establishments that manufacture term papers, theses, and dissertations for the right price (such as the infamous C.M. Recto district in downtown Manila, now replaced by numerous online services). They may also be employed by the pharmaceutical industry to write promotional, favorable studies that will list well-known persons (professors, scientists, senior clinicians) as authors, often with consent and adequate compensation.8 Examples include "a professor at the University of Wisconsin" being paid "$1,500 in return for putting his name" on "an article on the 'therapeutic effects' of their diet pill Redux (dexfenfluramine)," that was "pulled from the market" a year later "as doctors began reporting heart-valve injuries in as many as one-third of patients taking the drug" and the drug "later linked to dozens of deaths."9 Similar cases involved the "deadly drug" rofecoxib (Vioxx) "eventually blamed for some 60,000+ deaths," that "was also linked to a number of shameful scandals relating to fraudulent studies and the use of ghostwriters to boost sales."9 The costs involved are not meager; Parke-Davis paid "a medical education communication company (MECC) to write articles in support of the drug" Neurontin (gabapentin) "to the tune of $13,000 to $18,000 per article. In turn, MECC paid $1,000 each to friendly physicians and pharmacists to sign off as authors of the articles."9 Pfizer (who acquired Neurontin form Parke-Davis) "was found guilty of illegally promoting off-label uses of Neurontin," and "fined more than $142 million in damages."9 Whether or not morbidities or mortalities ensue from the practice, both ghosts and beneficiary-authors should be held liable in such situations.

Clearly, the practice of "gift," "guest," and "ghost" authorship should not be entertained by authors or tolerated by editors and reviewers. Authorship should be based on the ICMJE authorship criteria. Our editors and reviewers vigilantly strive to uphold and protect the rights and welfare of our authors and the integrity and soundness of their research. We call on all fellows, diplomates and residents in training to do the same.

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and ‘predatory’ sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.
Authorship ; Editorial Policies ; Ethics ; Information Storage and Retrieval ; Joints ; Medical Writing ; Periodicals as Topic ; Publications ; Quality Control ; Research Report ; Social Control, Formal

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.
Authorship* ; Fraud ; Peer Review* ; Specialization