🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the persistent problem of authorship misconduct in scholarly publishing. Using a large-scale empirical analysis of 81,000 articles published in *PLOS ONE* (2018–2023), it systematically assesses the accuracy of author contributions via CRediT-based textual analysis of contribution statements, augmented by statistical modeling and cross-regional demographic validation. The study identifies that 9.14% of papers exhibit inappropriate authorship—impacting over 14,000 researchers—constituting the first large-scale, evidence-based quantification of such misconduct. Results reveal significant geographic clustering of authorship irregularities, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Italy, and demonstrate strong associations with authors’ regional backgrounds and professional affiliations—especially scholars affiliated with industry or non-profit organizations. By shifting authorship ethics governance from normative advocacy to a data-driven paradigm, this work provides critical empirical evidence to inform global research integrity policies and institutional oversight frameworks.
📝 Abstract
Abstract Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal PLOS ONE, 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. Findings 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. Research limitations 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. Practical implications 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. Originality/value 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.