CONTEXT: To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute. METHODS: Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.

Authorship↗

PubMed2002

Publication bias in editorial decision making.

CONTEXT: Studies with positive results are more likely to be published than studies with negative results (publication bias). One reason this occurs is that authors are less likely to submit manuscripts reporting negative results to journals. There is no evidence that publication bias occurs once manuscripts have been submitted to a medical journal. We assessed whether submitted manuscripts that report results of controlled trials are more likely to be published if they report positive results. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of manuscripts submitted to JAMA from February 1996 through August 1999. We classified results as positive if there was a statistically significant difference (P<.05) reported for the primary outcome. Study characteristics and indicators for quality were also appraised. We included manuscripts that reported prospective studies in which participants were assigned to an intervention or comparison group and statistical tests compared differences between groups. RESULTS: Among 745 manuscripts, 133 (17.9%) were published: 78 (20.4%) of 383 with positive results, 51 (15.0%) of 341 with negative results, and 4 (19.0%) of 21 with unclear results. The crude relative risk for publication of studies with positive results compared with negative results was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.88). After being adjusted simultaneously for study characteristics and quality indicators, the odds ratio for publishing studies with positive results was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.87-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Among submitted manuscripts, we did not find a statistically significant difference in publication rates between those with positive vs negative results.

Biomedical Research↗

PubMed2002

Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance.

CONTEXT: Studies have shown that reports from clinical trials with statistically significant results tend to be submitted and published more rapidly than reports from studies with null or insignificant findings. METHODS: We wanted to determine whether manuscripts reporting positive results from controlled clinical trials are published more quickly than those reporting negative results. We tracked manuscripts from submission to JAMA until the publication decision. We classified results as positive if a statistically significant difference was reported for the primary outcome. Manuscripts were further classified according to indicators of methodologic quality and other study characteristics. We included manuscripts if they were submitted from February 1996 through August 1999, reported results of a prospective study in which participants were assigned to a treatment or comparison group, used statistical tests to compare differences between groups, and were accepted for publication. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three manuscripts met our inclusion criteria, 78 (59%) reported positive results, 51 (38%) reported negative results. We were unable to classify the direction of results for 4 articles (3%). The time interval between submission and publication was not associated with positive results: median time between submission and publication was 7.8 months for reports with positive vs 7.6 months for reports with negative results (P =.44). Time to publication also was not associated with any marker of study quality or study characteristic. CONCLUSIONS: Among 133 published controlled trials, time to publication was not associated with statistical significance, methodologic quality, or other study characteristics.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed1999

Caring for patients at the end of life: call for papers.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗

PubMed1997

Who wrote the Declaration of Helsinki?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Authorship↗