Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Ghost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is not known. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study comparing protocols and corresponding publications for industry-initiated trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in 1994-1995. We defined ghost authorship as present if individuals who wrote the trial protocol, performed the statistical analyses, or wrote the manuscript, were not listed as authors of the publication, or as members of a study group or writing committee, or in an acknowledgment. We identified 44 industry-initiated trials. We did not find any trial protocol or publication that stated explicitly that the clinical study report or the manuscript was to be written or was written by the clinical investigators, and none of the protocols stated that clinical investigators were to be involved with data analysis. We found evidence of ghost authorship for 33 trials (75%; 95% confidence interval 60%-87%). The prevalence of ghost authorship was increased to 91% (40 of 44 articles; 95% confidence interval 78%-98%) when we included cases where a person qualifying for authorship was acknowledged rather than appearing as an author. In 31 trials, the ghost authors we identified were statisticians. It is likely that we have overlooked some ghost authors, as we had very limited information to identify the possible omission of other individuals who would have qualified as authors. CONCLUSIONS: Ghost authorship in industry-initiated trials is very common. Its prevalence could be considerably reduced, and transparency improved, if existing guidelines were followed, and if protocols were publicly available.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Naming of authors can help to identify conflicts of interest and reduce ghost and gift authorship.
“Naming of authors can also help to identify conflicts of interest (item 7b) and reduce ghost and gift authorship.38 39 40 41”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Only a minority of reviews (2%) reported being funded by for-profit sources, but the true proportion may be higher.
“Only a minority of reviews (2%) reported being funded by for-profit sources, but the true proportion may be higher [171].”
From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [171]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 · Cited by 1,845 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For all published industry-initiated randomised trials approved in 1994–1995 by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in Denmark, we compared the full trial protocols with the publications. We initially identified 274 approved trial protocols, but after extensive literature searches in MED…”
Self-citationUneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry
Bodenheimer, T. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200005183422024 · Cited by 765 · cited 2× · see citing works
“We conclude that ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is very common, and we believe that this practice serves commercial purposes [13,17,21,22].”
Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., Gluud, C., & Kjaergard, L. L. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.921 · Cited by 746 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We conclude that ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is very common, and we believe that this practice serves commercial purposes [13,17,21,22].”
Rennie, D. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.278.7.579 · Cited by 685 · see citing works
Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals
Flanagin, A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.222 · Cited by 553 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Authorship establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit for scientific articles [”
Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents
Steinman, M. A., Bero, L. A., Chren, M., & Landefeld, C. S. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008 · Cited by 338 · cited 2× · see citing works
“We conclude that ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is very common, and we believe that this practice serves commercial purposes [13,17,21,22].”
Krleža-Jerić, K., Chan, A., Dickersin, K., Sim, I., Grimshaw, J., & Gluud, C. N. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7497.956 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Self-citationPrevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews
Mowatt, G. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2769 · Cited by 229 · cited 4× · see citing works
“In contrast, these two surveys, which relied on self-reporting, found rates of ghost authorship of 13% [1] and 11% [6], respectively.”
InfluentialInterface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics
Healy, D., & Cattell, D. (2003) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.183.1.22 · Cited by 218 · cited 4× · see citing works
“We conclude that ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials is very common, and we believe that this practice serves commercial purposes [13,17,21,22].”
InfluentialGood publication practice for pharmaceutical companies
Wager, E., Field, E. A., & Grossman, L. (2003) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/030079903125001767 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
How Statistical Expertise Is Used in Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2817 · Cited by 127 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These findings are in sharp contrast to a survey, with a 75% response rate, of 704 authors of manuscripts submitted to the BMJ and the Annals of Internal Medicine (only a minority of which were randomised trials), which found that statisticians and similar methodologists who had made a significant contribution at some…”
Self-citationJacobs, A., & Wager, E. (2005) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/030079905x25578 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Constraints on Publication Rights in Industry-Initiated Clinical Trials
Gøtzsche, P. C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H. K., Haahr, M. T., Altman, D. G., & Chan, A.-W. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1645 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citationHaunted Manuscripts: Ghost Authorship in the Medical Literature
Ngai, S., Gold, J., Gill, S. S., & Rochon, P. A. (2005) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620590957175 · Cited by 75 · cited 2× · see citing works
“First, legal proceedings and testimonies suggest that it is very common for professional medical writers to compose trial reports, reviews, and other papers for the pharmaceutical industry, but that their role is not revealed [13–18].”
Ghost writing initiated by commercial companies
Fletcher, R. H. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.41015.x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Brennan, T. A. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199409083311012 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Declaration of Medical Writing Assistance in International Peer-Reviewed Publications
Woolley, K. L., Ely, J. A., Woolley, M. J., Findlay, L., Lynch, F. A., Choi, Y., & McDonald, J. M. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.932-b · Cited by 23 · cited 1× · see citing works
“]. We found no references to medical writers in the protocols we reviewed, and they were acknowledged in only four publications (9%), which is consistent with a recent review of research articles [”
[Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials--secondary publication].
Gøtzsche, P. C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H. K., Haahr, M. T., Altman, D. G., & Chan, A. (2006) · PubMed · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationAuthorship of drug industry trials
Senn, S. J. (2002) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.11 · Cited by 8 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Omission of a company statistician, usually also from the acknowledgment section, deprives readers of a key insight into the role of the company, although it is sometimes evident that reports of industry-sponsored trials contain sophisticated statistical analyses that are beyond the capabilities of the authors [8].”
Wager, E. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7043.1423b · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2004 October Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals Philadelphia International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Available: http://www.icmje.org. Accessed 15 August 2006.
- Wager E Field EA Grossman L 2003 Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies Curr Med Res Opin 19 149 154 12814125
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164 · see citing works
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648 · see citing works
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578 · see citing works
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349 · see citing works
“Only a minority of reviews (2%) reported being funded by for-profit sources, but the true proportion may be higher (171).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., Hróbjartsson, A., Mann, H., Dickersin, K., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 · Cited by 7,363 · see citing works
“Many protocols for randomized trials do not adequately describe the primary outcomes (inadequate for 25% of trials) (18, 19), treatment allocation methods (inadequate for 54% to 79%) (20, 21), use of blinding (inadequate for 9% to 34%) (21, 22), methods for reporting adverse events (inadequate for 41%) (23), component…”
BackgroundSelf-citationSPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251 · see citing works
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Italian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2427/5768 · Cited by 3,374 · see citing works
Self-citationConflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
Institute of Medicine (2009) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/12598 · Cited by 824 · see citing works
Gagnon, M., & Lexchin, J. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001 · Cited by 501 · see citing works
“There are other avenues for promotion that would not be captured by either IMS or CAM, such as ghostwriting [16] and illegal off-label promotion [17].”
BackgroundMarušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477 · Cited by 396 · see citing works
“Gotsche, 2007 [92] Clinical trial protocols and publications from Sweden Prevalence of ghost authorship”
BackgroundInfluentialGhosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sismondo, S. (2009) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312708101047 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
“The work of company statisticians and researchers, reviewers from an array of departments, medical writers, and certainly the publication planners themselves, is only rarely acknowledged in journal publications (Gøtzsche et al., 2007; Moffatt & Elliott, 2007).”
Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.012 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
“It is sometimes difficult to tell whether a superb CV with a lengthy publication list reflects hard work and brilliant leadership or the composite product of dexterous power game networking, gift authorship [24], and excellence in the slave trade of younger researchers.”
BackgroundSismondo, S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Cresswell, L., Blundell, M., Gamble, C. L., & Williamson, P. R. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000031.pub2 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Self-citationHow pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses
Sismondo, S. (2008) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.010 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
“In companyinitiated trials, company statisticians usually perform statistical analyses, and are infrequently recognized by authorship (Gøtzsche et al., 2007).”
SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.
Chan, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., A-Jerić, K. K., Hrobjartsson, A., Mann, H., Dickersin, K., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Self-citationAuthorship: why not just toss a coin?
Strange, K. B. (2008) · American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., & Welsch, R. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637875 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
“Reasons for ghostwriting are a lack of time, background details, or rhetoric skills [13, 88], situations in which a public persona’s name as the author is essential for marketing [17, 37], peer pressure to boost reputation or credibility in science [45, 80], or financial gain [44, 100].”
BackgroundSPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials
Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081660 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationDickersin, K., & Chalmers, I. (2011) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.11k042 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Sermon, K., Capalbo, A., Cohen, J., Coonen, E., Rycke, M. D., Vos, A. D., Delhanty, J. D. A., Fiorentino, F., Gleicher, N., Griesinger, G., et al. (2016) · Molecular Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/molehr/gaw034 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
The gendered nature of authorship
Ni, C., Smith, E. M. R., Yuan, H., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe4639 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
“The rise in the number of authors per paper ( 23 ) and ambiguity surrounding authorship has given rise to serious concerns about the ethical aspects of authorship ( 24 – 26 ) and the degree to which fairness is observed ( 27 ).”
Sismondo, S. (2018) · Mattering Press eBooks · doi:10.28938/9780995527775 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?
Gøtzsche, P. C., Kassirer, J. P., Woolley, K. L., Wager, E., Jacobs, A., Gertel, A., & Hamilton, C. W. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
“To ensure accountability, ethical review committees and drug agencies should not accept protocols that have no named authors, although this is very common [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationPreimplantation genetic screening: back to the future
Mastenbroek, S., & Repping, S. (2014) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deu163 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
“In this light, additional attention has to be paid to stakeholders with potential commercial interests as economic forces are well known to have an effect on the design and reporting of clinical studies with the aim to (mis)use science for marketing purposes (Gotzsche et al., 2007; Psaty and Kronmal, 2008; Ross et al.…”
BackgroundPUBLICATION ETHICS AND THE GHOST MANAGEMENT OF MEDICAL PUBLICATION
Sismondo, S., & DOUCET, M. (2009) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Sismondo, S. (2013) · The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics · doi:10.1111/jlme.12073 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship?
Wager, E. (2007) · PubMed Central · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)
Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00097 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles
Vasilevsky, N., Hosseini, M., Teplitzky, S., Ilik, V., Mohammadi, E., Schneider, J., Kern, B., Colomb, J., Edmunds, S., Gutzman, K. E., et al. (2020) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Systematic Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Content of Clinical Trial Protocols
Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., Draper, H., Ives, J., Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., et al. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110229 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“Our findings are concordant with the prevailing empirical evidence that important general methodological details are often missing from protocols [10–12,18,19].”
ResultAuthorship policies of scientific journals: Table 1
Resnik, D. B., Tyler, A. M., Black, J., & Kissling, G. E. (2015) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103171 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations
Chan, A.-W., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2018) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2510-1 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences
Schott, G., Pachl, H., Limbach, U., Gundert‐Remy, U., Lieb, K., & Ludwig, W.-D. (2010) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2010.0295 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002778 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“Conversely to gift authorship, the opposite trend, ghost authorship, typically occurs when corporate authors write manuscripts for academics and the real authors don’t appear on the manuscript [32].”
BackgroundGuidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review
Tetzlaff, J., Chan, A., Kitchen, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., & Moher, D. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-43 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“Given the evidence of protocol deficiencies [11-14] and the importance of trial protocols to diverse stakeholders we believe there is a need for standard guidance that is developed using rigorous methods, broad”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationPublication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors
Singhal, S., & Kalra, B. S. (2021) · Indian Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The Ethical Assignment of Authorship in Scientific Publications: Issues and Guidelines
Feeser, V. R., & Simon, J. R. (2008) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00239.x · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey
Tetzlaff, J., Moher, D., & Chan, A. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-176 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“Importantly, many of these concepts are often not described in protocols of RCTs [1,3,9,10,35].”
BackgroundSelf-citationMcGaw, L. J., Lall, N., Hlokwe, T. M., Michel, A. L., Meyer, J. J. M., & Eloff, J. N. (2008) · Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin · doi:10.1248/bpb.31.1429 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Rasmussen, K., Bero, L., Redberg, R., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Lundh, A. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k3654 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences
Kakuk, P. (2009) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Stern, S., & Lemmens, T. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001070 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“Commentators have condemned the practice as unethical and unacceptable and have discussed the harms resulting from this form of medical ghostwriting, recommending that journal submissions be policed more aggressively and that the ‘‘guest authors’’ be suitably sanctioned by journals, academic institutions, and regulato…”
BackgroundIndustry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022
Siena, L. M., Papamanolis, L., Siebert, M., Bellomo, R. K., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43425 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics
Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Maniadis, Z. (2023) · Internal and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11739-023-03447-w · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Gift authorship may co-exist with ghost authorship [21–25], where the author(s) who really wrote the paper do not even appear, while one or more gift authors take their place.”
Ghostwriting: The Dirty Little Secret of Medical Publishing That Just Got Bigger
Editors, T. P. M. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Others have written about ghostwriting campaigns concerning single drugs that have led to catastrophic health effects [7], and how even research papers and clinical trials are affected by ghost authors [7,8].”
BackgroundTibau, A., Bedard, P. L., Srikanthan, A., Ethier, J.-L., Vera-Badillo, F., Templeton, A. J., Ocaña, A., Šeruga, B., Barnadas, A., & Amir, E. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.57.8898 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
A Moderate Pluralist Approach to Public Health Policy and Ethics
Selgelid, M. J. (2009) · Public Health Ethics · doi:10.1093/phe/php018 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Sponsors’ participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study
Lundh, A., Krogsbøll, L. T., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2012) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-146 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“However, this may not prevent sponsor influence, as academic authors often have constraints on publication rights [8,9], the sponsor often owns the data [9,10], ghost authorship is common [11], and academic authors may have industry ties [12].”
BackgroundSelf-citationAuthorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations
Scientific, I., Hess, C., Brückner, C., Kaiser, T., Mauron, A., Wahli, W., Wenzel, U., & Salathé, M. (2015) · Swiss Medical Weekly · doi:10.4414/smw.2015.14108 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Marušić, A., Hren, D., Mansi, B. A., Lineberry, N. B., Bhattacharya, A., Garrity, M. J., Clark, J., Gesell, T., Glasser, S. C., Gonzalez, J., et al. (2014) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0197-z · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“cations [5-10].”
Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare
Heneghan, C., Mahtani, K. R., Goldacre, B. M., Godlee, F., Macdonald, H., & Jarvies, D. (2017) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-j2973rep · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Stretton, S. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004777 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Ethics, Tuberculosis and Globalization
Selgelid, M. J. (2008) · Public Health Ethics · doi:10.1093/phe/phn001 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication
Hosseini, M., Lewis, J., Zwart, H., & Gordijn, B. (2022) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“, 2014) or worse, not operationalisable and ignored by research groups (Gøtzsche et al., 2007).”
BackgroundAuthors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians
Wager, E. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040034 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“In a new study published in PLoS Medicine, Peter Gøtzsche and colleagues compared research protocols with study publications to examine the prevalence and nature of ghost authorship in 44 industry-initiated randomized trials [5].”
BackgroundCopyright and Collective Authorship
Simone, D. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108186070 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research
Winter, J. D., & Kosolosky, L. (2012) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9394-3 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“2008), while company employees who did make a significant contribution are not (ghostwriters) (Gøtzsche et al. 2007).”
BackgroundBibliometrics Study on Authorship Trends in Periodontal Literature From 1995 to 2010
Geminiani, A., Ercoli, C., Feng, C., & Caton, J. G. (2013) · Journal of Periodontology · doi:10.1902/jop.2013.130354 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Ivaniš, A., Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0599-8 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“We used 2 types of contribution disclosure forms: ordinal rating form and binary rating form (Appendixes 1 and 2). Both types of forms had the same contribution categories listed in the same order: (1) Analysis and interpretation of data; (2) Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; (3)…”
MethodClyburne-Sherin, A., Thurairajah, P., Kapadia, M. Z., Sampson, M., Chan, W. W. Y., & Offringa, M. (2015) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0954-0 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“Despite protocol-reporting guidelines, reviewers identified gaps in reporting of outcomes [24], allocation concealment [25], sample size calculations [26], and sponsor and investigator roles [27].”
BackgroundSoft Targets: Nurses and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Jutel, A., & Menkes, D. B. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050005 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals
Dotson, B., & Slaughter, R. L. (2011) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp100583 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Tan, Z. W., Tan, A. C., Li, T., Harris, I., Naylor, J. M., Siebelt, M., van Tiel, J., Pinheiro, M., Harris, L., Chamberlain, K., et al. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038283 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Honorary Coauthorship: Does it Matter?
O’Brien, J., Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., & Noble, J. (2009) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2009.09.001 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Moving from opacity to transparency in pharmaceutical policy
Dhalla, I. A., & Laupacis, A. (2008) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070799 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials
Riaz, H., Raza, S., Khan, M. S., Riaz, I. B., & Krasuski, R. A. (2015) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.09.034 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape
Kroeger, C. M., Garza, C., Lynch, C. J., Myers, E. F., Rowe, S. B., Schneeman, B. O., Sharma, A. M., & Allison, D. B. (2018) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqx067 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“able data, ensuring an intent to publish those data and following through on that intent, disclosing known limitations, and restricting ghost authorship (43).”
BackgroundThe gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine
Macdonald, S. (2022) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/05390184221142218 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Of articles describing industry-initiated randomized trials, nearly all are ghost written (Gøtzsche et al., 2007).”
BackgroundAuthorship policies of bioethics journals: Table 1
Resnik, D. B., & Master, Z. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040675 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“In ghost authorship, a person who has made a substantial contribution to the research is omitted from the authorship list. For example, pharmaceutical companies sometimes use ghost authors to write manuscripts and conduct studies, and hire scientists from academic institutions to serve as authors, in order to conceal…”
BackgroundSardanelli, F., Bashir, H., Berzaczy, D., Cannella, G., Espeland, A., Flor, N., Helbich, T., Hunink, M. G. M., Malone, D. E., Mann, R. M., et al. (2014) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.14131730 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research
Desrochers, N., Paul‐Hus, A., & Pecoskie, J. (2017) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23903 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Thelwall, M. A., & Sud, P. (2015) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.007 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Determining authorship in multicenter trials: a systematic review
Dulhunty, J. M., Boots, R. J., Paratz, J. D., & Lipman, J. (2011) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02477.x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Tam, V. C., Tannock, I. F., Massey, C., Rauw, J. M., & Krzyzanowska, M. K. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.33.3922 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
How ghost-writing threatens the credibility of medical knowledge and medical journals
Barbour, V. (2010) · Haematologica · doi:10.3324/haematol.2009.017426 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“One of the first comprehensive surveys of the prevalence of ghost authors was published in 2007.(3) This survey, which took advantage of the availability of trial protocols from one source, and then compared the authorship of the protocols with that of the published papers, found evidence of ghost authorship for 75% o…”
ResultInvestigator experiences with financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials
Rochon, P. A., Sekeres, M., Hoey, J., Lexchin, J., Ferris, L. E., Moher, D., Wu, W., Kalkar, S. R., Van Laethem, M., Gruneir, A., et al. (2011) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-9 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“Court documents have been the source of information for much of what we know about the practice of ghost authorship [19-23] Our findings suggest that full adherence to preferred practice was highest when these practices are required and enforced by an external agent.”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationThe Impact of a Researcher’s Structural Position on Scientific Performance: An Empirical Analysis
Contandriopoulos, D., Duhoux, A., Larouche, C., & Perroux, M. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161281 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
“This is a limitation, as the number and visibility of publications are to a large extent influenced by social factors such as professional reputation and notoriety [54] [55].”
BackgroundLong term productivity and collaboration in information science
Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2061-8 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ethical Considerations in the Publication of Scientific Articles
y, P. A., Bayés‐Genís, A., de Isla, L. P., Sanchís, J. M., & Heras, M. (2011) · Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition) · doi:10.1016/j.rec.2011.02.005 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Consideraciones éticas de la publicación de artículos científicos
y, P. A., Bayés‐Genís, A., de Isla, L. P., Sanchís, J. M., & Heras, M. (2011) · Revista Española de Cardiología · doi:10.1016/j.recesp.2011.02.006 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Honorary and ghost authorship in reports of randomised clinical trials in oncology
Vera-Badillo, F., Napoleone, M., Krzyzanowska, M. K., Alibhai, S. M. H., Chan, A., Ocaña, A., Templeton, A. J., Šeruga, B., Amir, E., & Tannock, I. F. (2016) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.06.023 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citationJohnson, T. (2008) · Journal of American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2008.07.007 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“Adiscussionof ghostwritingdeservesmention.(36-41) Ghostwriters may be hired by industry to write a paper to promote and market, most commonly, a drug or device, including off-label uses.”
BackgroundMirzazadeh, A., Navadeh, S., Rokni, M., & Farhangniya, M. (2011) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice
Moffatt, B. (2018) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2018.1437347 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“(Gøtzsche et al. 2007, 0048) They further state that anyone who makes substantial contributions to the first two ICMJE conditions should count as authors.”
BackgroundTatsioni, A., Siontis, G. C. M., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1360-7 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Evidence‐based Epileptology, Randomized Controlled Trials, and SANAD: A Critical Clinical View
PANAYIOTOPOULOS, C. P. (2007) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01172.x · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“Selective, biased, and incomplete study outcomes (Chan and Altman, 2005b) and ghost authorship (Gotzsche et al., 2007).”
BackgroundOrphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship
Moffatt, B. (2013) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.767115 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Altman, D. G., Bastian, H., Boutron, I., Brice, A., Jamtvedt, G., Farmer, A. A., Ghersi, D., Groves, T., et al. (2010) · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citationGhostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature
DeTora, L. M., Carey, M. A., Toroser, D., & Baum, E. Z. (2019) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1608101 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“Search Term (N) Papers by journal type (N) Papers by most common specialty areas (N) Ghost writ (33) Ghostwrit (136) Ghost writer (11) Ghostwriter (6) Ghost writing (118) Ghostwriting (96) Using “OR” (257) ICMJE journals (27) Ethics/bioethics (23) Residency/academic medicine (10) Surgery (10) Pharmacotherapy (9) Psych…”
BackgroundFDA Guidance on Off-Label Promotion and the State of the Literature From Sponsors
Psaty, B. M. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.16.1949 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“But Doctors do it…”: Nurses' Views of Gifts and Information from the Pharmaceutical Industry
Jutel, A., & Menkes, D. B. (2009) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1345/aph.1m027 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Langdon‐Neuner, E. (2008) · Mens Sana monographs · doi:10.4103/0973-1229.33006 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
“Gøtzsche et al. (2007) and others have pushed for protocols to be published in the belief that the only way to ensure honesty is access to raw data.”
BackgroundIndustry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview
Janiaud, P., Cristea, I. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5325-3 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Bosch, X. (2011) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.1038/embor.2011.87 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Salager‐Meyer, F., Ariza, M. Á. A., & Pabón, M. (2008) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20981 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“3The problem is that it is difficult to know exactly how many articles are ghostwritten; however, Gøtzsche et al. (2007) recently found that from the 44 publications based on clinical trials they looked at, 31 had ghost statisticians (see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/…”
BackgroundDishonesty in medicine revisited.
Fred, H. L. (2008) · PubMed Central · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Fary, C., Cholewa, J. M., Abshagen, S., Andel, D. V., Ren, A. N., Anderson, M. B., & Tripuraneni, K. R. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23125588 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Publication Outcomes of Phase II Oncology Clinical Trials
Hoeg, R. T., Lee, J. A., Mathiason, M. A., Rokkones, K., Serck, S. L., Crampton, K. L., Emmel, A. E., Severson, E. A., & Go, R. S. (2009) · American Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1097/coc.0b013e3181845544 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Another factor is ghost authorship, which is prevalent (75%) among industry-initiated randomized trials.(13) Data are not available for prevalence of ghost authorship among nonrandomized or nonindustry sponsored trials.”
BackgroundSalandra, R. (2018) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.005 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gøtzsche, P. C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H. K., Haahr, M. T., Altman, D. G., & Chan, A.-W.
- Affiliations
- Cochrane (DK)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Gøtzsche, Peter C
- Venue
- PLoS Medicine
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2007-01-16
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e19
- ISSN
- 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-1676
- PMC
- PMC1769411
- OpenAlex
- W2095312096
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 25.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- ghost authorship, authorship criteria, pharmaceutical industry, acknowledgment of contributors, research transparency
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Humans, Publishing, Scientific Misconduct, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
