Pondering authorship: a symptom of a deeper malaise
N. Goodman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1995.tb06034.x
IF: 12.893
1995-06-01
Anaesthesia
Abstract:‘The most serious potential consequence of “gift” authorship is the spectre of dishonesty.’ [2] Just a few months after Rollin wrote these words in her editorial, ‘How many authors?, the practice of gift authorship deprived British obstetrics and gynaecology of its journal editor and the president of its Royal College, when he admitted that he had allowed his name to be put on a paper simply because he was head of the department in which the work was done. These bare facts omit the most important and most telling part of the story. The resignation was forced not because of gift authorship, but because the paper, a case report of a re-implanted ectopic pregnancy, was fraudulent [3]. The story received much media attention, but the Dairy Mail, with the rest of the press in pursuit, would probably have shown little interest if the report had been genuine-despite the scientifically prestigious journal Nature believing that gift authorship is a scientific dishonesty: ‘a disreputable and also a dangerous practice’ [4]. This dishonesty, by common and casual assent, is common throughout medicine, and many regard gift authorship as part of the baggage that comes with clinical research. Firm facts on authorship are difficult to get. From Shapiro’s American survey [5] and my smaller, British-based one [6], about one-third of authors do not comply with the accepted criteria of the Vancouver group [l] (see above). It is another matter whether authors know of or agree with these criteria, and whether further investigation will be hampered by the threat of censure (of those gifted with authorship) and professional bullying (of trainees whose work is appropriated). While collecting my survey and since it was published, I have gathered some disquieting information. There is a world-famous clinician whose name appears on 30 or so papers published in the last 3 years in important medical journals. It is obvious from the titles of the papers, which cover a wide range of clinical and scientific medical subjects, that the clinician is unlikely to have understood the details of many of them, even less likely to have made an important intellectual contribution. I spoke to the first author of one of the papers, who doubted that the clinician had read, the paper even after it was published, never mind before it was submitted. More than that: the other co-authors on the paper were also ‘gift’ authors; all papers coming from those units have certain names on them. Two other trainees have told me of other units where the professors’ names go on every paper. Another told me that, in his specialty, a paper simply will not get publishedunless an ‘important’ name is on it, an appalling denial of scientific integrity. The other side of the coin is the units that are popular with trainees because they know their names will appear on a number of papers despite their part in the studies being no more than form-filling, if that. For those trainees who think that for non-academics the paper chase ends with the consultant appointment, I was told of a district general hospital in which two consultants insisted their names go on every paper to increase their chances of getting merit awards. These are not apocryphal stories, though the evidence -the names and the incidents-must remain confidential. Given Shapiro’s and my figures they are not surprising. But why should someone with the standing of President of a Royal College feel the need to have his name on yet another paper? Why should a world-famous clinician wish to appear connected with others’ work? And why did the actual author of the fraudulent case report want the name of his departmental head: as a courtesy, or to secure publication by association? If we ignore the motive of self-aggrandisement-and all these people had honours enough that a few scientific papers here or there were of no account-the only conclusion I draw is that the practices associated with gift authorship arise directly from the need to be measured: for advancement up the clinical ladder, for the merit award, for the next grant. Because papers are easy to count, they become the units of currency needed to exchange eventually for real currency. Even if assessors do read one or two papers it is difficult to ignore a total once known. There is a curious paradox in science. The clumsy passive voice (the third person) of conventional scientific style is supposed to give the idea of the universal observer [7]: the observations are important; the observer irrelevant. The practice of gift authorship shows this for the hokum it is: the observations become irrelevant; authorship is all. Papers are written not to be read, but to be cited [S]. Some medical scientific papers are thus from their birth dishonest. A system that encourages this dishonesty taints anything that touches it, and risks corrupting those who use it, whether they use it properly or not. While people are measured so simplistically for an activity so difficult to judge, there will be no change. Assessment of an individual is difficult, of an institution more so. The lists submitted each year to the universities, previously filed more or less as a formality, have become part of the assessment business as the universities bow helplessly to the intellectually bankrupt notion of measuring academic worth largely by papers written and grants obtained [9]; now the hospitals want these lists as well, as evidence of ‘academic excellence’, and in fear of loss of SIFTR monies and medical students. The higher ideals of academia, which apply just as much to the original thinker in clinical medicine as in any other subject, become subsumed in an untidy counting exercise,