Guest Authorship Research Articles

The ICMJE Recommendations and pharmaceutical marketing--strengths, weaknesses and the unsolved problem of attribution in publication ethics.

BackgroundThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations set ethical and editorial standards for article publication in most leading medical journals. Here, I examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Recommendations in the prevention of commercial bias in industry-financed journal literature, on three levels – scholarly discourse, article content, and article attribution.DiscussionWith respect to overall discourse, the most important measures in the ICMJE Recommendations are for enforcing clinical trial registration and controlling duplicate publication. With respect to article content, the ICMJE promotes stringent author accountability and adherence to established reporting standards. However, the ICMJE accepts the use of commercial editorial teams to produce manuscripts, which is a potential source of bias, and accepts private company ownership and analysis of clinical trial data. New ICMJE guidance on data sharing will address but not eliminate problems of commercial data access. With respect to attribution, the Recommendations oppose guest authorship and encourage clear documentation of author contributions. However, they exclude writers from coauthorship; provide no specific advice on the attribution of commercial literature, for instance with respect to company authorship, author sequence or prominent commercial labeling; and endorse the use of fine print and euphemism. The ICMJE requires detailed author interest disclosures, but overlooks the interests of non-authors and companies, and does not recommend that interests most salient to the publication are highlighted. Together, these weaknesses facilitate “advocacy”-based marketing, in which literature planned, financed and produced by companies is fronted by academics, enabling commercial messages to be presented to customers by their respected clinical peers rather than companies themselves.ConclusionsThe ICMJE Recommendations set important research and reporting standards, without which commercial bias would likely be a significantly greater problem than it is today. However, they also support practices of commercial data control, content development and attribution that run counter to science’s values of openness, objectivity and truthfulness. These weaknesses could be addressed with appropriate modifications to the Recommendations. The ICMJE should also disclose its own commercial interests and funding – not least because publishing organizations that finance it and pay the salaries of some member editors derive substantial revenues from industry.

Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective.

Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics.

Industry Collaboration and Primary Guest Authorship of High-Impact Randomized Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Journals have increased disclosure requirements in recent years, in part to deter guest authorship. The prevalence of guest authorship among primary authors (first and last) in the current era of increased disclosure requirements is unknown. Our aim was to examine the self-reported prevalence of guest authorship among primary authors from a sample of randomized clinical trials with and without industry funding and industry collaboration in the design, analysis or reporting of trials. Cross-sectional analysis of randomized, drug/device clinical trials with published details on the "Role of the Funding Source/Sponsor" published in high-impact biomedical journals between 1 December 2011 and 31 November 2012. Phase 1 or 2 trials, secondary trial analyses, and trials that were not listed on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Primary guest authorship was defined, based on International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria, when neither the first nor last author contributed to either of the following: 1) the design of the trial or the analysis/interpretation of data; or 2) drafting part or all of the manuscript. One hundred and sixty-eight randomized clinical trials that met inclusion criteria were included. We measured differences in the prevalence of guest authorship between trials with neither industry funding nor collaboration and 1) trials with industry funding without collaboration, and 2) trials with industry funding with collaboration. The overall prevalence of primary guest authorship was 6 % (10/168). Primary guest authorship was significantly more common in trials with industry funding with collaboration than in those with neither industry funding nor collaboration [13.2 % (10/76) vs. 0 % (0/39); p < 0.02]. Primary guest authorship did not differ between trials with industry funding without collaboration and trials with neither industry funding nor collaboration. Among a sample of randomized, drug/device clinical trials in high-impact biomedical journals, primary guest authorship was overall uncommon and occurred exclusively among trials with industry funding with collaboration.

Ghost and guest authors: you can't always trust who you read.

Clinicians and educators rely on the published medical information. They trust that original research and narrative or systematic reviews are reliable and the authorship is transparent, but this is not always the case. Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors is required by most journals, disclosure will not detect ghost or guest authorship. Ghosting or guesting is of more than academic interests because it can directly or indirectly affect patient care. Therefore it is important for readers to be aware of this issue, and to be alert to suggestions that particular works may be at increased risk for ghost or guest authors. It is important to take a proactive stance against these practices. Industry, universities, research centers, and professional medical associations should be clear and unequivocal in condeming these practices. Processes need to be in place to investigate and, if need be, deal with violations. Clearly, we must all participate in this endeavor for professional, ethical, and most importantly, best patient care reasons.

Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Nursing Publications

The purposes of this study were to (a) assess the prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in 10 leading peer-reviewed nursing journals between 2010 to 2012; (b) compare the results to prevalence reported by authors of articles published in high-impact medical journals; and (c) assess the experiences of editors in the International Academy of Nursing Editors with honorary and guest authorship. Corresponding authors of articles published in 10 nursing journals between 2010 and 2012 were invited to complete an online survey about the contributions of coauthors to see if the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors () criteria for authorship were met. Additionally, members of the International Academy of Nursing Editors were invited to complete an online survey about their experiences in identifying honorary or ghost authors in articles submitted for publication. The prevalence of articles published in 10 nursing journals with honorary authors was 42%, and the prevalence of ghost authorship was 27.6%. This is a greater prevalence than what has been reported among medical journals. Qualitative data yielded five themes: lack of awareness around the rules for authorship; acknowledged need for debate, discussion, and promotion of ethical practice; knowingly tolerating, and sometimes deliberately promoting, transgressions in practice; power relations and expectations; and avoiding scrutiny. Among the 60 respondents to the editor survey, 22 (36.7%) reported identifying honorary authors and 13 (21.7%) reported ghost authors among papers submitted to their publications. Inappropriate authorship is a significant problem among scholarly nursing publications. If nursing scholarship is to maintain integrity and be considered trustworthy, and if publications are to be a factor in professional advancement, editors, nursing leaders, and faculty need to disseminate and adhere to ethical authorship practices.

The prisoners' dilemmas: Authorship guidelines and impact factors: between a rock and a hard place.

Every academic working in science, medicine, or elsewhere is familiar with authorship guidelines and impact factors (IFs). Most journals now have strict guidelines in place that govern precisely who can and cannot be named as an author on a paper. However, even honest researchers can sometimes find it difficult to adhere to authorship guidelines. The ranking of journals is normally based on the IF, which is calculated by the number of citations during the past 2 years divided by the number of articles, yet it is now widely recognized that IFs are generally not an appropriate measure for the quality of the individual articles published in a journal. These two facts create problems for researchers, trapping them in a prisoner's dilemma in which rational self‐interest results in worse outcomes for each than mutually advantageous cooperation. Academics know that they should adhere to authorship guidelines and that they should not attribute too much importance to IFs, but they continue to do so because they fear the consequences of acting otherwise. One of the main reasons that journals introduced authorship guidelines was to combat the phenomena of guest and ghost authorship. For decades, researchers who did not contribute to papers at all have been named as authors (guests) and junior researchers who did much of the work have not been credited at all (ghosts) [1]. Authorship guidelines aim to stop this by providing strict criteria for authorship and requiring authors to sign a statement that they adhere to these criteria (see Sidebar 1 for example criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). However, institutional pressure, whether from the university or academic tradition, sometimes makes it difficult for researchers to adhere to authorship guidelines. For example, in particular disciplines and countries, it is customary to name the head of the …

Reflections on 25 years at the Journal

My tenure at Emergency Medicine Australasia over 25 years has encompassed a number of editorial roles, beginning as the founding Editor in 1989 when the journal Emergency Doctor was a mere newsletter, before becoming Emergency Medicine, which was produced at Fremantle Hospital. I was then Scientific Editor when I stood down as Editor and Gerry FitzGerald was appointed Editor-in-Chief under a new organisational structure in 1994, by which time the journal Emergency Medicine was produced at the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine in Melbourne. This was followed by a return to the Editor-in-Chief position at the end of 1999 when the journal Emergency Medicine was now produced by Blackwell. Finally, my role became that of Emeritus Editor when Tony Brown’s tenure as Editor-in-Chief began at the end of 2003 and the Journal finally acquired its current title of Emergency Medicine Australasia. My goals and aspirations for the Journal over that time have understandably reflected where the Journal was in its development during each of those periods, and my role. In the beginning, I was more than happy with a regular newsletter that could enhance clinical communication between geographically dispersed emergency physicians and other clinicians involved in emergency medicine, who were members of the Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine. Fairly quickly though, it became clear that this vehicle could well mature into a bona fide medical journal. My greatest pleasures during this first 5 years of the Journal’s development reflected the same pioneering spirit we all had in developing the nascent specialty. It was exciting, the wealth of possibilities far outweighed any perceived risks, and there was a great sense of camaraderie among those Fellows and supporting staff who were volunteering their time and skills in this great adventure. AnneMaree Kelly, Bryan Walpole, John Vinen and Gordian Fulde were all keen and helpful, and the Annual Conference chat with Paul Gaudry and Ken Abraham kept things in perspective. By the end of that first 5 years, it was clear that Emergency Medicine was here to stay as a journal, albeit with many hurdles still to navigate; we had published 242 articles in that time, 17% original research, 17% case reports and 14% review articles. Gerry FitzGerald convinced me to stay on as Scientific Editor of the Journal when he was appointed Editor-in-Chief in 1994, and over the next 5 years, my goals were able to be much more focused on getting the journal processes right, without the distraction of having to produce the actual copy. As part of that, the Journal sponsors funded my attendance at the World Association of Medical Editors Conference in Prague in 1997. Here I met luminaries of journalology such as Drummond Rennie and Richard Smith, and discovered the evidence base (or lack thereof) around biomedical publishing itself. My interest was particularly sparked by presentations on peer review, conflict of interest, scientific misconduct and the ethics of biomedical publishing; I was amazed and alarmed to find out about the whole issue of guest and ghost authorship, listening to presentations by people who had written papers in major journals but who did not appear in the list of authors or even receive any acknowledgement. It was here that I began to be concerned about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical publishing, and more importantly, on research and clinical practice in medicine. My views on the potential harms caused by secrecy in science became clearer after that conference, and after discussion with the Editorial Board, Emergency Medicine opened its process of peer review so that authors and reviewers knew each other’s identities. We continue with open peer review at Emergency Medicine Australasia to this day, and I believe it is one of the most important improvements we have introduced at the

Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: Imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles

There are persistent concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical and device industries on the medical literature, and particularly on the reporting of clinical trials, which can include the distortion of the true evidence base of medical interventions and overestimation of the clinical benefit of a drug used to treat patients [1]. An especially problematic issue involves the industry practice of publishing studies prepared by hired medical writers but signed by academic “guest authors” who are invited to add their names without fulfilling authorship criteria. In this case, “guest authorship” is accompanied by “ghostwriting,” which occurs when a published article fails to acknowledge the original writer or writers' contributions [2]–[4]. Ghostwriting can also occur when an academic research group uses a professional writer to draft an article based on data generated by the group. When the research group retains control of the data and the final analysis, however, there is less of a concern about possible bias in the reporting of the results, and the appropriate remedy in that case is to report explicitly the role and contribution of the medical writer in the article. Here, we concentrate on ghostwriting and guest authorship in industry-controlled research, where several examples have revealed the use of ghostwriters to insert concealed marketing messages favourable to a company's product, and the recruitment of academics as “guest” authors despite not fulfilling authorship criteria [5]–[9]. Commentators have condemned the practice as unethical and unacceptable and have discussed the harms resulting from this form of medical ghostwriting, recommending that journal submissions be policed more aggressively and that the “guest authors” be suitably sanctioned by journals, academic institutions, and regulatory agencies [1]–[14]. However, these recommendations have not yet been widely embraced by the academic institutions, medical journals, and medical licensing organizations that would seem to have the most at stake in curbing this practice. Here, we discuss some of the reasons for this lack of response and suggest that the law may offer a solution, given these other institutions' failure to impose sanctions.

Ghost- and Guest-Authored Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Studies: Abuse of Academic Integrity, the Peer Review System, and Public Trust

Industry-sponsored ghost- and guest-authored clinical research publications are a continuing problem in medical journals. These communications are written by unacknowledged medical communication companies and submitted to peer-reviewed journals by academicians who may not have participated in the writing process. These publications, which are used for marketing purposes, usually underestimate the adverse effects and medical risks associated with the products evaluated. Since peer-reviewed data are used to develop health care paradigms, misleading information can have catastrophic effects. A failure to curb ghost and guest authorship will result in an erosion of trust in the peer-review system, academic research, and health care paradigms.

Medical Students’ Experiences With Authorship in Biomedical Research

To explore authorship issues related to medical students' primary research projects, assess medical students' knowledge about authorship issues in biomedical research, and determine their interest in learning about authorship guidelines. In 2011, the authors developed and conducted an electronic survey of 243 U.S. medical students who attended an educational event at the National Institutes of Health as part of their funded, yearlong research fellowship programs. The authors then analyzed the results using descriptive statistics. Of 243 students, 152 (63%) responded. Most (120/151; 79%) had completed or were in the process of writing a manuscript based on their projects. Of these, most (95/119; 80%) wrote the entire manuscript independently or with guidance. Whereas almost two-thirds (99/152; 65%) indicated that expectations and criteria for authorship were clarified for them, 26% (40/152) indicated that they were not. Most students (108/118; 92%) were in the authorship position they expected and had no concerns about who the other authors were (91/119; 77%). Of those with concerns, 52% (11/21) did not raise the issue for fear of challenging their mentor. Two-thirds (95/145; 66%) never received formal training in authorship guidelines, and 41% (42/103) believed such training would be valuable. Although a majority of students had conversations about authorship and were clear about the guidelines for ethical authorship, additional work is needed. The authors recommend that academic institutions develop a menu of options for teaching students about this important area in research ethics.

Selecting Your Editorial Board: Maintaining Standards

Selecting Your Editorial Board: Maintaining Standards

Authorship and Contributorship in Scholarly Journals

Authorship and Contributorship in Scholarly Journals

Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors

Authorship problems in scholarly journals shake the foundations of research, diminish scientific quality of papers and devalue records of citation tracking services. The 'Publish or Perish' mantra is thought to drive some instances of unfair, honorary authorship, particularly in countries of emerging scientific power. Though causes of honorary, gift, guest and ghost authorship are still ill-defined, it is possible to avoid some of these instances by improving awareness of what constitutes authorship and by adhering to the editorial policies of learned associations. This paper overviews common cases of inappropriate authorship and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers and editors of scholarly journals.

Guest authors are not welcome

Software Testing, Verification and ReliabilityVolume 22, Issue 2 p. 65-65 EditorialFree Access Guest authors are not welcome First published: 11 October 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/stvr.1466AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat This issue has two excellent papers. The first, Regression Testing Minimisation, Selection andPrioritisation: A Survey, by Yoo and Harman, provides an extensive survey of research on minimizing and prioritizing tests for regression testing, including a total of 189 references. The second, Timing Analysis of Scenario-based Specifications Using Linear Programming, by Li, Pan, Bu, Wang and Zhao, presents an approach to analysing UML sequence diagrams to solve reachability, constraint conformance and bounded delay problems. A colleague recently asked me for an opinion on ‘guest authorship’ of papers, referring to an essay from Scientific American 1. A guest author is added to a paper despite not adding any intellectual content, labor in the work behind the paper or contribution to the writing. Some guest authors are added as part of a mutual support deal. I add your name to my papers and you add mine to yours, inflating both publication records. Some add ‘big names’ to a paper in the hopes that the paper will get favorable reviews. (I can ensure you this does not work—if anything, ‘big name’ scientists are subjected to more critical scrutiny.) Some junior scientists are expected to add senior colleagues’ names to papers as an appreciation for the extra administrative burden they shoulder. I have even heard of PhD advisors who expect their former students to add their names to papers long after graduating. To be direct and clear, my firm opinion, and the policy of this journal, is that putting your name on a paper you did not contribute to is lying. It deceives readers. It is theft of credit. It claims credit for something you did not do. It is simply a form of plagiarism. If the editorial staff for STVR finds guest authorship, the paper will be handled just as any other type of plagiarism. The paper will be rejected, department chairs or deans will be notified and the authors (all authors) will not be welcome to submit papers to STVR again. I have only thought of three gray areas. One is if the guest author is the source of funds, the PI who supports the scientists who did the work. Another is if the guest author taught the class the paper was initially written for. In both cases, the guest author can claim credit for creating the environment that allowed the research to flourish and possibly for teaching knowledge and skills that were directly reflected in the paper. Personally, I would not accept being a guest author in this situation (and have declined such invitations) but can see some merit to the argument. Third is if the guest author did not know his or her name was being used. The contributing authors are certainly to blame, but perhaps not the guest author (maybe I could use this technique to increase my Erdös number …). Science can only flourish in an atmosphere of honesty and openness. Dishonesty, corruption and obscurity corrupt and disrupt the scientific process. JEFF OFFUTT [email protected] 21 January 2012 REFERENCES 1 Janet D. Scientific authorship: guests, courtesy, contributions, and harms, Stemwedel, Scientific American, (November, 2011). Available from: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/11/04/scientific-authorship-guests-courtesy-contributions-and-harms/ [last accessed on 29 January 2012]. Volume22, Issue2March 2012Pages 65-65 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Why shared data should not be acknowledged on the author byline

We argue that the emerging practice of using the author byline to acknowledge shared data is incompatible with current established standards for academic authorship. Non-author contributors, whether groups or individuals, should not be added to the author list of published papers. Deviation from these principles devalues authorship and raises issues, such as equal treatment of groups and individuals, credit for shared data vs. other shared resources, and ultimately guest authorship. Such dilution of authorship standards is problematic because it can compromise fair evaluations in the scientific community. We briefly discuss viable alternatives for crediting contributors, such as citations of papers describing shared data, reference to dataset publications, inclusion in the Acknowledgments section, or credit of individuals for sharing data in an Appendix, a solution that has been used in academic evaluation.

Should guest authorship be banned?

Nurse PrescribingVol. 9, No. 9 News AnalysisShould guest authorship be banned?Maria AnguitaMaria AnguitaSearch for more papers by this authorMaria AnguitaPublished Online:16 Aug 2013https://doi.org/10.12968/npre.2011.9.9.422AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Stern, & Lemmens, 2011 Stern S, Lemmens T (2011) Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: imposing graud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles. PLoS Med 8(8): e1001070 doi 10.1371/journl.pmed.1001070 Google ScholarDonohue, Cevasco, & Rosenthal, 2007 Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB (2007) A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med 357: 673–81. Available from: file:///G:/PEW%20Project/ References/DTC/Donohue_2007_ NEJM_A%20Decade%20of%20 DTC% 20of%20Rx%20Drugs.pdf Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 1 September 2011Volume 9Issue 9ISSN (print): 1479-9189ISSN (online): 2052-2924 Metrics History Published online 16 August 2013 Published in print 1 September 2011 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

How Industry Uses the ICMJE Guidelines to Manipulate Authorship—And How They Should Be Revised

Scientists and clinicians need to know the authorship, author interests, and origination of the articles they read to judge them appropriately. Since 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has provided evolving guidance on how authorship should be managed in the complex setting of modern biomedical science [1],[2], to the benefit of the published literature. Issues such as accountability, fraud, conflicts of interest, trial registration, and access to data have been considered by this voluntary, self-funded, closed-membership group of select general medical journal editors (http://www.icmje.org/) [3]–[5]. However, certain industry practices, including publications planning, ghostwriting, and guest authorship, have yet to be adequately addressed. On the basis of industry publications and documents, textual analysis, and direct working experience in the “medical communications” sector, I show here how pharma has succeeded not merely in outmaneuvering the ICMJE guidelines, but is able to use them as the basis for inappropriate attributions of authorship.

Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles

There are persistent concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical and device industries on the medical literature, and particularly on the reporting of clinical trials, which can include the distortion of the true evidence base of medical interventions and overestimation of the clinical benefit of a drug used to treat patients [1]. An especially problematic issue involves the industry practice of publishing studies prepared by hired medical writers but signed by academic “guest authors” who are invited to add their names without fulfilling authorship criteria. In this case, “guest authorship” is accompanied by “ghostwriting,” which occurs when a published article fails to acknowledge the original writer or writers' contributions [2]–[4]. Ghostwriting can also occur when an academic research group uses a professional writer to draft an article based on data generated by the group. When the research group retains control of the data and the final analysis, however, there is less of a concern about possible bias in the reporting of the results, and the appropriate remedy in that case is to report explicitly the role and contribution of the medical writer in the article. Here, we concentrate on ghostwriting and guest authorship in industry-controlled research, where several examples have revealed the use of ghostwriters to insert concealed marketing messages favourable to a company's product, and the recruitment of academics as “guest” authors despite not fulfilling authorship criteria [5]–[9]. Commentators have condemned the practice as unethical and unacceptable and have discussed the harms resulting from this form of medical ghostwriting, recommending that journal submissions be policed more aggressively and that the “guest authors” be suitably sanctioned by journals, academic institutions, and regulatory agencies [1]–[14]. However, these recommendations have not yet been widely embraced by the academic institutions, medical journals, and medical licensing organizations that would seem to have the most at stake in curbing this practice. Here, we discuss some of the reasons for this lack of response and suggest that the law may offer a solution, given these other institutions' failure to impose sanctions.

Authorship and Medical Ghostwriting: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Policy

Authorship of biomedical articles serves to acknowledge and credit individuals who contributed substantially to the development, writing, and editing of articles. In addition, authorship indicates who is responsible for ideas and experiments, and can be used to hold people accountable if something is disproven or shown false. Types of authorship can be divided into four primary categories: ghost authorship, guest authorship, gift authorship, and legitimate authorship. Of these four categories, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (along with other journals, the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, and the Committee on Publication Ethics) affirms that only authors who meet the criteria of "legitimate authorship" as authors should be listed on an article. This article discusses what constitutes legitimate article authorship and sets forth the Journal's policy on authorship.

The Journal of Pathology's approach to publication ethics and misconduct

This Editorial highlights recent changes at The Journal of Pathology intended to improve our ability to detect, and we hope deter, instances of ethical misconduct among submissions made to the Journal, such as cases of guest authorship and plagiarism. We also discuss our experience to date and describe our policies for dealing with such cases. These changes are all encapsulated in our full online Author Guidelines.