Article Text

Original research
Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019
  1. Kamber L Hart1,2,
  2. Roy H Perlis1,2
  1. 1Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Center for Quantitative Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Roy H Perlis; rperlis{at}partners.org

Abstract

Objective Authorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.

Design This study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.

Primary outcome measures The distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.

Results The overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.

Conclusion Overall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.

  • statistics & research methods
  • medical education & training
  • medical history
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Contributors RHP was responsible for the conceptualisation of the project, supervision of data collection and manuscript preparation. KLH collected and analysed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests RHP reports personal fees from Genomind, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures and Takeda. He reports equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics. All are outside the submitted work. KLH has nothing to disclose.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval This study was not submitted for ethics approval as it does not analyse data collected from human or animal subjects. The analysis plan was not preregistered as this was a secondary analysis of existing data.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available at https://github.com/kamberhart/GC-academic-medicine.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.