Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 23.
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004435. Online ahead of print.

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

Nicholas A Mirsky  1 , Sara E Munkwitz  1 , Wrood M Kassira  2 , Pawan Pathagamage  1 , Paulo G Coelho, Seth R Thaller  2
Affiliations

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

Nicholas A Mirsky et al. Ann Plast Surg. .

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; authorship; biomedical research; medical journals; publishing ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Smith E, Williams-Jones B. Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012;18:199–212.
    1. Shamoo AE, Resnik DB. Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press; 2009.
    1. Booth CM, Ross JS, Detsky AS. The changing medical publishing industry: economics, expansion, and equity. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38:3242–3246.
    1. Bornmann L, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66:2215–2222.
    1. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship: part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat Res. 2005;589:31–45.

LinkOut - more resources