{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,26]],"date-time":"2026-04-26T22:55:35Z","timestamp":1777244135497,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":37,"publisher":"Walter de Gruyter GmbH","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,31]],"date-time":"2024-05-31T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1717113600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of authorship attributions in scientific publications, focusing on the fairness and precision of individual contributions within academic works.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal\n                      <jats:italic>PLOS ONE<\/jats:italic>\n                      , covering the period from January 2018 to June 2023. It examines the authorship attributions within these publications to try and determine the prevalence of inappropriate authorship. It also investigates the demographic and professional profiles of affected authors, exploring trends and potential factors contributing to inaccuracies in authorship.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Findings<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Surprisingly, 9.14% of articles feature at least one author with inappropriate authorship, affecting over 14,000 individuals (2.56% of the sample). Inappropriate authorship is more concentrated in Asia, Africa, and specific European countries like Italy. Established researchers with significant publication records and those affiliated with companies or nonprofits show higher instances of potential monetary authorship.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Research limitations<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Our findings are based on contributions as declared by the authors, which implies a degree of trust in their transparency. However, this reliance on self-reporting may introduce biases or inaccuracies into the dataset. Further research could employ additional verification methods to enhance the reliability of the findings.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Practical implications<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>These findings have significant implications for journal publishers, highlighting the necessity for robust control mechanisms to ensure the integrity of authorship attributions. Moreover, researchers must exercise discernment in determining when to acknowledge a contributor and when to include them in the author list. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the credibility and fairness of academic publications.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Originality\/value<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study contributes to an understanding of critical issues within academic authorship, shedding light on the prevalence and impact of inappropriate authorship attributions. By calling for a nuanced approach to ensure accurate credit is given where it is due, the study underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,31]],"date-time":"2024-05-31T06:52:07Z","timestamp":1717138327000},"page":"88-115","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in\n                    <i>PLOS ONE<\/i>\n                    and the challenges of appropriate attribution"],"prefix":"10.2478","volume":"9","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9268-8022","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Abdelghani","family":"Maddi","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"GEMASS \u2013 CNRS \u2013 Sorbonne Universit\u00e9 , 59\/61 rue Pouchet Paris , France"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jaime A.","family":"Teixeira da Silva","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Independent researcher , Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken , , Japan"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"374","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,31]]},"reference":[{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Abalkina, A. (2023). Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learned Publishing, 36(4), 689\u2013702. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/leap.1574","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1574"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Abalkina, A., & Bishop, D. (2023). Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology. Meta-Psychology, 7. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.15626\/MP.2022.3422","DOI":"10.15626\/MP.2022.3422"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ali, M. J. (2021). No room for ambiguity: the concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 69(1), 36\u201341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/ijo.IJO_2221_20","DOI":"10.4103\/ijo.IJO_2221_20"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_004","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Allen, L., O\u2019Connell, A., & Kiermer, V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 71\u201374. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/leap.1210","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1210"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_005","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Baumgartner, H. A., Alessandroni, N., Byers-Heinlein, K., Frank, M. C., Hamlin, J. K., Soderstrom, M., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., Yuen, F., & Coles, N. A. (2023). How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6), 230235. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1098\/rsos.230235","DOI":"10.1098\/rsos.230235"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bernardi, K., Lyons, N. B., Huang, L., Holihan, J. L., Olavarria, O. A., Martin, A. C., Milton, A. N., Loor, M. M., Zheng, F., Tyson, J. E., Ko, T. C., & Liang, M. K. (2020). Gender disparity in authorship of peer-reviewed medical publications. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 360(5), 511\u2013516. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.amjms.2019.11.005","DOI":"10.1016\/j.amjms.2019.11.005"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151\u2013155. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1087\/20150211","DOI":"10.1087\/20150211"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Brand, R. A. (2012). Further thoughts on authorship: gift authorship. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research\u00ae, 470(10), 2926\u20132929. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11999-012-2504-3","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-012-2504-3"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dusdal, J., & Powell, J. J. W. (2021) Benefits, motivations, and challenges of international collaborative research: a sociology of science case study. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 235\u2013245. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/scipol\/scab010","DOI":"10.1093\/scipol\/scab010"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hoekman, J., & Rake, B. (2024). Geography of authorship: how geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science. Research Policy, 53(2), 104927. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.respol.2023.104927","DOI":"10.1016\/j.respol.2023.104927"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Holcombe, A. O., Kovacs, M., Aust, F., & Aczel, B. (2020). Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0244611. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0244611","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0244611"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kerr, R. L., de Vreese, C., Logan, R. A., Steiner, L., Pearson, G. S., & Pierson, C. A. (2018). Authorship transparency in an era of accountability. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(4), 871\u2013885. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1077699018802805","DOI":"10.1177\/1077699018802805"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_013","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Khalifa, A. A. (2022). Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 20, 100735. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jemep.2021.100735","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jemep.2021.100735"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kwiek, M. (2020). Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system. Scientometrics, 124(1), 57\u2013105. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-020-03460-2","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-020-03460-2"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_015","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2015). Guest authors or ghost inventors? Inventorship and authorship attribution in academic science. Evaluation Review, 39(1), 19\u201345. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0193841X13517234","DOI":"10.1177\/0193841X13517234"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Marginson, S., & Xu, X. (2023). Hegemony and inequality in global science: problems of the center-periphery model. Comparative Education Review, 67(1), 31\u201352. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1086\/722760","DOI":"10.1086\/722760"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_017","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors\u2019 contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(11), 2557\u20132560. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1715374115","DOI":"10.1073\/pnas.1715374115"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_018","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.159.3810.56","DOI":"10.1126\/science.159.3810.56"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Misra, D. P., Ravindran, V., & Agarwal, V. (2018). Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 33(46), e287. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3346\/jkms.2018.33.e287","DOI":"10.3346\/jkms.2018.33.e287"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Morton, B., Vercueil, A., Masekela, R., Heinz, E., Reimer, L., Saleh, S., Kalinga, C., Seekles, M., Biccard, B., Chakaya, J., Abimbola, S., Obasi, A., & Oriyo, N. (2022), Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships. Anaesthesia, 77(3), 264\u2013276. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/anae.15597","DOI":"10.1111\/anae.15597"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_021","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ni, C., Smith, E., Yuan, H., Larivi\u00e8re, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021). The gendered nature of authorship. Science Advances, 7(36), eabe4639. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/sciadv.abe4639","DOI":"10.1126\/sciadv.abe4639"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_022","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Nichols, T. E., Das, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Evans, A. C., Glatard, T., Hanke, M., Kriegeskorte, N., Milham, M. P., Poldrack, R. A., Poline, J.-B., Proal, E., Thirion, B., Van Essen, D. C., White, T., & Yeo, B. T. T. (2017). Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI. Nature Neuroscience, 20(3), Article 3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/nn.4500","DOI":"10.1038\/nn.4500"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_023","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Patience, G. S., Galli, F., Patience, P. A., & Boffito, D. C. (2019). Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0198117. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0198117","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0198117"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325\u2013341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/030631293023002004","DOI":"10.1177\/030631293023002004"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_025","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 65\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1207\/s15327019eb1501_5","DOI":"10.1207\/s15327019eb1501_5"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_026","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Savchenko, E., & Rosenfeld, A. (2024). Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross-discipline survey. Scientometrics (in press). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11192-024-04972-x","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-024-04972-x"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_027","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Seeman, J. I., & House, M. C. (2015). Authorship issues and conflict in the U.S. academic chemical community. Accountability in Research, 22(6), 346\u2013383. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/08989621.2015.1047707","DOI":"10.1080\/08989621.2015.1047707"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_028","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sismondo, S. (2020). Ghost-Managing and Gaming Pharmaceutical Knowledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7551\/mitpress\/11087.003.0012","DOI":"10.7551\/mitpress\/11087.003.0012"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_029","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 199\u2013212. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11948-011-9263-5","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-011-9263-5"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_030","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivi\u00e8re, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul-Hus, A., Shi, M., & Resnik, D. B. (2020). Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 1967\u20131993. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11948-019-00112-4","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-019-00112-4"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_031","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit. Online Information Review, 45(6), 1116\u20131130. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/OIR-06-2020-0219","DOI":"10.1108\/OIR-06-2020-0219"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_032","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2023). How are authors\u2019 contributions verified in the ICMJE model? Plant Cell Reports, 42(9), 1529\u20131530. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00299-023-03022-9","DOI":"10.1007\/s00299-023-03022-9"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_033","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2024). The conceptual \u2018APC ring\u2019: Is there a risk of APC-driven guest authorship, and is a change in the culture of the APC needed? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, (in press, DOI not yet assigned).","DOI":"10.31235\/osf.io\/vhkd8"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_034","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobr\u00e1nszki, J. (2016). Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest\/gift authorship, and the cultural\/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1457\u20131472. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11948-015-9716-3","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-015-9716-3"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_035","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Rivera, H. (2021). Spousal and kinship co-authorship should be declared to avoid conflicts of interest. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 18(3), 379\u2013381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11673-021-10123-1","DOI":"10.1007\/s11673-021-10123-1"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_036","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Tsigaris, P., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2023). Acknowledgments in scientific papers. Publishing Research Quarterly. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12109-023-09955-z","DOI":"10.1007\/s12109-023-09955-z"},{"key":"2026020518343250200_j_jdis-2024-0015_ref_037","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Whetstone, D., & Moulaison-Sandy, H. (2020). Quantifying authorship: a comparison of authorship rubrics from five disciplines. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), e277. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/pra2.277","DOI":"10.1002\/pra2.277"}],"container-title":["Journal of Data and Information Science"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,5]],"date-time":"2026-02-05T18:35:47Z","timestamp":1770316547000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.degruyterbrill.com\/document\/doi\/10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015\/html"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,31]]},"references-count":37,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,7,24]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,1]]}},"alternative-id":["10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2478\/jdis-2024-0015","relation":{},"ISSN":["2543-683X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2543-683X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,31]]}}}