What are the prevalence and motivations surrounding courtesy authorship in current surgical academia?
This survey study found that courtesy authorship remains prevalent (17%). The rates and motivations of courtesy authorship vary greatly between first and senior authors as well as in high and low impact factor journals.
Courtesy authorship remains a common practice in surgical academia, and by understanding the motivations and incentives, clinicians can work to eliminate its occurrence.
Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown.
To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship.
A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors.
Conclusions and Relevance
Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
Accepted for Publication: June 17, 2019.
Corresponding Author: Matthew J. Martin, MD, Trauma and Emergency Surgery Service, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, 2801 N Gantenbein, Portland, OR 97227 (email@example.com).
Published Online: September 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3140
Author Contributions: Dr Martin had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: McClellan, Mansukhani, Moe, Kibbe, Martin.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: McClellan, Moe, Derickson, Chiu, Martin.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McClellan, Mansukhani, Moe, Kibbe, Martin.
Statistical analysis: McClellan, Mansukhani, Moe, Derickson, Martin.
Obtained funding: McClellan.
Administrative, technical, or material support: McClellan, Mansukhani, Moe, Derickson, Kibbe.
Supervision: Mansukhani, Kibbe, Martin.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Disclaimer: Dr Kibbe is editor of JAMA Surgery, but she was not involved in any of the decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.
Meeting Presentation: This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Coast Surgical Association; February 16; Tucson, Arizona.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.