The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 31, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 554-556

  Kwok, L S ^a  

^a Eagle Eye Vision Consultants   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FORGERY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERSONALITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; WRITING;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

AGGRESSION; AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PERSONALITY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 24944574442     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.010553     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Vuckovic-Dekic L. Authorship-coauthorship. Arch Oncol 2003;11:211-12.
2. Bennett DM, Taylor DM. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2003; 15:263-70.
3. Garfield E. More on the ethics of scientific publication: abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science. In: Essays of an information scientist, 1981-82, vol 5. Philadelphia, PA: 151, 1983. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p621y1981-82.pdf (accessed 3 Dec 2004).
4. Mainous AG 3rd, Bowman MA, Zoller JS. The importance of interpersonal relationship factors in decisions regarding authorship. Fam Med 2002;34:462-7.
5. Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Who did what? (Mis)perceptions about authors' contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85:1605-9.
6. Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997;314:1009.
7. Rose HJ. A handbook of Greek mythology, including its extension to Rome. London: Methuen, 1958:183.
8. Fenning TM. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk. Nature 2004;427:393.
9. ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (updated October 2004). http://www.icmje.org/ (accessed 3 Dec 2004).
10. Marco CA, Schmidt TA. Who wrote this paper? Basics of authorship and ethical issues. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:76-7.
11. Breen KJ. Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility? Intern Med J 2003;33:186-91.
12. Dalton R. The stars who fell to Earth. Nature 2002;420:728-9.
13. Lynoe N, Jacobsson L, Lundgren E. Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research - an empirical study of demarcation. J Med Ethics 1999;25:501-6.
14. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol 2003;58:499-504.
15. Mojon-Azzi SM, Mojon DS. Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica 2004; 218:1-3.
16. McCrory P. Fraud and misconduct in publication. Br J Sports Med 2003;37:95.
17. Garfield E. Giving credit only where it is due: the problem of defining authorship. The Scientist 1995;9:13.
18. Abbott A. Dispute over first authorship lands researchers in dock. Nature 2002;419:4.
19. Van Der Weyden MB. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from the "Hall affair". Med J Aust 2004;180:149-51.
20. Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet 1997; 349:567-9.
21. US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. ORI provides working definition of plagiarism. http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/policies/plagiarism.asp (accessed 3 Dec 2004).
22. Albert T, Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk (accessed 23 Nov 2004).
23. Anon. Authorship without authorization. Nat Mater 2004;3:743.
24. Lawrence PA. The politics of publication. Nature 2003;422:259-61.
25. Drenth JP. Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. JAMA 1998;280:219-21.
26. Onwude JL, Staines A, Lilford RJ. Multiple author trend worst in medicine. BMJ 1993;306:1345.
27. Weeks WB, Wallace AE, Kimberly BCS. Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc Sci Med 2004;59:1949-54.
28. Dennis C. Misconduct row fuels calls for reform. Nature 2004;427:666.
29. Frazzetto G. Who did what? EMBO Rep 2004;5:446-8.
30. Steneck NH. The role of professional societies in promoting integrity in research. Am J Health Behav 2003; 27(suppl 3):239-47S.
31. Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 2001; 27:344-6.
32. Wendler D, Miller FG. Deception in the pursuit of science. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:597-600.
33. Abbott A, Graf P. Survey reveals mixed feelings over scientific misconduct. Nature 2003;424:117.
34. Murray CA, Das DR. The price of scientific freedom. Nat Mater 2003;2:204-5.
35. Brumfiel G. Time to wise up? Nature 2002;418:120-1.
36. Minkel JR. Reality check: alleged fraud gets physicists thinking about misconduct. Sci Am 2002;287(5):20-1.
37. Katsavdakis KA, Gabbard GO, Athey GI Jr. Profiles of impaired health professionals. Bull Menninger Clin 2004; 68:60-72.
38. Lawrence PA. Rank injustice: the misallocation of credit is endemic in science. Nature 2002;415:835-6.
39. Kocsis RN. Criminal psychological profiling: validities and abilities. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2003; 47:126-44.