Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship
- 22 February 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Accountability in Research
- Vol. 20 (2) , 59-71
Abstract
Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Industry Uses the ICMJE Guidelines to Manipulate Authorship—And How They Should Be RevisedPLOS Medicine, 2011
- Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary AuthorshipAccountability in Research, 2011
- The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT”PLOS Medicine, 2010
- What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?PLOS Medicine, 2009
- Ghost Marketing: Pharmaceutical Companies and Ghostwritten Journal ArticlesPerspectives in Biology and Medicine, 2007
- Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised TrialsPLOS Medicine, 2007
- The corporate coauthorJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2005
- Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane ReviewsJAMA, 2002
- Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical JournalsJAMA, 1998
- The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical facultyBMJ, 1997