title: Authorship and medical ghostwriting: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery policy.
abstract: Authorship of biomedical articles serves to acknowledge and credit individuals who contributed substantially to the development, writing, and editing of articles. In addition, authorship indicates who is responsible for ideas and experiments, and can be used to hold people accountable if something is disproven or shown false. Types of authorship can be divided into four primary categories: ghost authorship, guest authorship, gift authorship, and legitimate authorship. Of these four categories, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (along with other journals, the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Council of Science Editors, and the Committee on Publication Ethics) affirms that only authors who meet the criteria of "legitimate authorship" as authors should be listed on an article. This article discusses what constitutes legitimate article authorship and sets forth the Journal's policy on authorship.
authors: Dallas, Texas From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and the Editorial Office of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
authors: Daniel
authors: D
authors: Sullivan
authors: Rod J
authors: RJ
authors: Rohrich
references: Drazen JM, Curfman GD. On authors and contributors. N Engl J Med. 2002;55:55.
references: O'Brien J, Baerlocher MO, Newton M, Gautam T, Noble J. Honorary coauthorship: Does it matter? Can Assoc Radiol J. 2009;60:231–236.
references: Tanne JH. Senator asks US medical schools about rules on ghostwriting. BMJ. 2009;339:b5013.
references: Rennie D, Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA 1994;271:469–471.
references: Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008:299:1800–1812.
references: Collier R. Prevalence of ghostwriting spurs calls for transparency. CMAJ. 2009;181:e161–e162.
references: PLoS Medicine Editors. Ghostwriting: The dirty little secret of medical publishing that just got bigger. PLoS Med. 2009:6;e10000156.
references: Paul M. On transparency, responsibility, and accountability. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2009;15:1100–1102.
references: Tanne JH. US survey favours acknowledging medical study ghostwriters. BMJ. 2009;339:b3968.
references: Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 1997;278:579–585.
references: Rohrich RJ. The promise and perils of peer review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:795–797.
references: Rohrich RJ, Sullivan D. Plagiarism and dual publication: Review of the issues and policy statement. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1333–1339.