Honorary authorship in postgraduate medical training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether postgraduate medical trainees are exposed to honorary authorship, whether they are aware of the topic and if they believe that further support and education concerning this issue is needed. METHODS: Postgraduate medical trainees were contacted by email with a link to our questionnaire on two occasions (2 and 26 February 2014) and then contacted in person (June-November 2014). The questionnaire topics included demographics, authorship practice beliefs and experience, and authorship policy-related questions. We also determined the proportion of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined and unperceived honorary authorship in the respondent group. RESULTS: The response rate was 27.7%. The prevalence of perceived, ICMJE-defined and unperceived honorary authorship was 38.1%, 57.3% and 24.2%, respectively; 90.1% were unaware of the ICMJE authorship criteria, 92.6% were unaware of a support system for authorship disputes, but 91.8% believed such a system should be implemented and 93.3% believed medical trainees and faculty should be instructed on authorship guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: A paradigm shift from the current system is needed, where enforcement of ethical authorship practices is shifted away from journal editors. Instruction on the topic should be provided to medical trainees throughout medical school and continued during further training. A process should also be outlined to resolve authorship disputes. These measures may encourage researchers to have an open discussion on the topic prior to the commencement of a research project, and to resolve authorship conflicts in a constructive manner. We also hope this paper encourages further work on the topic.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".