Table 3

Stratification of responses by whether the use of explicit authorship guidelines and criteria in current research setting is frequently encouraged or not

n (%)
Use of explicit authorship guidelines frequently encouraged (n=1410)Use of explicit authorship guidelines not frequently encouraged (n=2404)*
Agrees that the explicit use of authorship guidelines and criteria is beneficial to research teams when preparing a paper and deciding on authorship1330 (94)2025 (84)
Never been involved in a study where someone has been added as an author who did not contribute substantially (honorary authorship)426 (30)501 (21)
Never been involved in a study where someone was not listed as an author when they contributed substantially (ghost authorship)951 (67)1526 (64)
Never experienced honorary or ghost authorship350 (25)388 (16)
Experienced both honorary and ghost authorships370 (26)744 (31)
Authorship eligibility discussed at an early stage during study design817 (58)970 (40)
Authorship order discussed at an early stage during study design497 (35)566 (24)
Used explicit authorship criteria to decide who should be an author on their last coauthored paper1161 (82)1023 (43)
Felt decision on who should be an author on their last coauthored paper was a fair reflection of who did what1273 (90)1810 (75)
Felt decision on order of authorship on their last coauthored paper was a fair reflection of who did what1266 (90)1886 (79)
  • *Includes responses of ‘other’, ‘not sure’, ‘not encouraged’ and ‘sometimes encouraged’.