Honorary Coauthorship: Does it Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the perception of honorary coauthorship among medical academics and to determine whether a potential effect of honorary coauthorship exists on patient care. METHODS: Corresponding authors of every fourth primary research paper published in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association (2001-2003), Canadian Medical Association Journal (2001-2003), British Medical Journal (1998-2000), and Lancet (1998-2000) were surveyed electronically. Questions were focused on each author's personal experience and perception of honorary coauthorship. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of corresponding authors responded (127/195). Fifty-five percent of respondents had published more than 50 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 52% had been listed with an honorary coauthor at some point in their career. Eighteen percent of respondents had been required at some point to list authors who had provided data via a commercial relationship. A majority of authors believed that there were potential negative effects of honorary coauthorship for both the authors themselves (73%) and for their coauthors (83%). These negative effects included personal liability for honorary authors (29%) and dilution of relative contribution for their coauthors (54%). Sixty-two percent of respondents said that honorary coauthorship may have a negative effect on patient care; however, only 2% had been involved in a case in which this phenomenon had actually occurred. CONCLUSION: Honorary coauthorship remains prevalent in the medical literature, even among highly published authors, and has the potential to negatively affect patient care. Respondents believed that a number of possible negative consequences of this phenomenon exist for honorary authors, their coauthors, and patients. Efforts to understand the true influence of honorary authorship on patient care may help further curb this practice in the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".