Knowledge and Awareness of Authorship Practices Among Health Science Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants N=321

Variables
Gender, n (%)
Male			156 (48.2%)
Female			165 (51.4%)
College, n (%)		Academic year, n (%)
College of Medicine	94 (29.3%)	First year	11 (3.4%)
		Second year	74 (23.1%)
		Third year	0 (0%)
		Fourth year	9 (2.8%)
College of Pharmacy	93 (29.0%)	First year	20 (6.2%)
		Second year	32 (10.0%)
		Third year	38 (11.8%)
		Fourth year	3 (0.9%)
College of Dentistry	109 (34.0%)	First year	56 (17.4%)
		Second year	15 (4.7%)
		Third year	19 (5.9%)
		Fourth year	19 (5.9%)
College of Nursing	12 (3.7%)	First year	2 (0.6%)
		Second year	0 (0%)
		Third year	10 (3.1%)
College of Applied Medical Sciences	13 (4.0%)	First year	3 (0.9%)
		Second year	6 (1.9%)
		Third year	4 (1.2%)
		Fourth year	0 (0%)
Number of publications, n (%)
0			282 (87.9%)
1–2			20 (6.2%)
3–4			10 (3.1%)
More than 4			9 (2.8%)
Number of completed research projects, n (%)
0			210 (65.4%)
1–2			82 (25.5%)
3–4			6 (1.9%)
More than 4			23 (7.2%)
Number of research projects with less than 4 authors, n (%)
0			261 (81.6%)
1–2			49 (15.3%)
3–4			10 (3.1%)
More than 4			0 (0%)
Number of research projects with more than 4 authors, n (%)
0			166 (52.4%)
1–2			133 (42.0%)
3–4			10 (3.2%)
More than 4			8 (2.4%)
Have you been an author of/on a multi-authored paper, n (%)
Yes			132 (41.3%)
No			188 (58.7%)
Have you been first author, n (%)
Yes			11 (3.4%)
No			310 (96.6%)
Have you been a corresponding author, n (%)
Yes			104 (32.5%)
No			216 (67.5%)
Source of information regarding authorship guideline, n (%)
Lectures			193 (60.1%)
Workshop			20 (6.3%)
Experience			29 (9.0%)
Self-reading			60 (18.7%)
Other			19 (5.9%)

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of the Participant’s Experiences and Attitude Regarding Authorship Practices

In my Experience
	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Do not Know	Total
Authorship listing and order are usually discussed at the beginning of a new collaboration	78 (24.3%)	110 (34.3%)	53 (16.5%)	11 (3.4%)	18 (5.6%)	51 (15.9%)	321
Authors’ order and credit should be allocated according to the contributions to the project in the following order: greatest contribution first	100 (31.2%)	99 (30.8%)	35 (10.9%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	87 (27.1%)	321
Authors’ order and credit should be allocated according to the contributions to the manuscript writing in the following order: greatest contribution first	96 (30.0%)	109 (34.0%)	53 (16.6%)	5 (1.6%)	2 (0.6%)	55 (17.2%)	320
Authors’ order and credit should be allocated according to the contributions to the project in the following order: least contribution first	6 (1.9%)	35 (10.9%)	50 (15.6%)	83 (25.9%)	110 (34.3%)	37 (11.5%)	321
Authors’ order and credit should be allocated according to one’s needs (promotion, application for position, etc.)	18 (5.6%)	53 (16.5%)	97 (30.2%)	70 (21.8%)	34 (10.6%)	49 (15.3%)	321
It is difficult to establish definitive criteria for authorship of research article	36 (11.2%)	89 (27.7%)	91 (28.3%)	43 (13.4%)	14 (4.4%)	48 (15.0%)	321
Journals should always mention the contribution of each author	57 (17.7%)	124 (38.6%)	83 (25.9%)	25 (7.8%)	1 (0.3%)	31 (9.7%)	321
Allocating authorship is influenced by the team’s relationships	53 (16.5%)	99 (30.9%)	81 (25.3%)	37 (11.6%)	13 (4.1%)	37 (11.6%)	320
At your institution, allocating authorship credit is done through following specific authorship guidelines	23 (7.2%)	76 (23.7%)	98 (30.5%)	20 (6.2%)	22 (6.9%)	82 (25.5%)	321
Persons who contributed to the work but were not qualified to be authors should be acknowledged	102 (31.8%)	84 (26.1%)	77 (24.0%)	14 (4.4%)	2 (0.6%)	42 (13.1%)	321
Students may be forced to include their supervisors (mentors) as authors	55 (17.1%)	111 (34.6%)	69 (21.5%)	41 (12.8%)	11 (3.4%)	34 (10.6%)	321

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of the Participant’s Knowledge Regarding Authorship List and Public Responsibility

The Following Persons Should be Listed as Authors of a Manuscript Even Without Substantial Contribution to the Work	Yes	No	Not Sure	Acknowledged		Total
The owner of research idea	230 (72.1%)	18 (5.6%)	38 (11.9%)	33 (10.3%)		319
Research or lab technician	51 (15.9%)	64 (20.0%)	95 (29.7%)	110 (34.4%)		320
The funding provider	64 (20.1%)	46 (14.5%)	78 (24.5%)	130 (40.9%)		318
The biostatistician	95 (29.6%)	50 (15.6%)	73 (22.7%)	103 (32.1%)		321
The manuscript technical writer (unpaid service)	90 (28.0%)	35 (10.9%)	105 (32.7%)	91 (28.3%)		321
The owner of the lab	30 (9.3%)	118 (36.8%)	90 (28.0%)	83 (25.9%)		321
The department head (supervisor)	68 (21.2%)	111 (34.6%)	86 (26.8%)	56 (17.4%)		321
Data collectors (students)	141 (43.9%)	11 (3.4%)	67 (20.9%)	102 (31.8%)		321
The provider of materials, reagents or patients for the research	56 (17.5%)	72 (22.5%)	106 (33.1%)	86 (26.9%)		320
	First Author	Corresponding Author	Research Team Head	All Authors	Do not Know
Author who should take public responsibility for the work is	93 (29.1%)	21 (6.5%)	22 (6.9%)	116 (36.3%)	68 (21.3%)	320

Table 4 Frequency Distribution of the Participant’s Knowledge and Experience of Ghost and Guest Authors and Authorship Malpractices

	Yes	No	Total
Were you aware of Guest authorship before this time?	117 (36.4%)	204 (63.6%)	321
Were you aware of Ghost authorship before this time?	111 (34.6%)	210 (65.4%)	321
Has guest authorship been awarded in any manuscript/project on which you were an author?	56 (17.4%)	265 (82.6%)	321
Has ghost authorship been awarded in any manuscript/project on which you were an author?	48 (15.0%)	272 (85.0%)	320
Have you been influenced by anyone to include them as an author in your work?	54 (17.1%)	262 (82.9%)	316
Have you been influenced by anyone to remove persons as an author from your work?	35 (10.9%)	286 (89.1%)	321
Have you been involved in a dispute with your colleagues about the order of authorship?	77 (24.1%)	243 (75.9%)	320
Do you think relationships could adversely affect or directly influence the process of assigning authors?	206 (64.4%)	114 (35.6%)	320
Do you think courses or workshops should be provided for all students to ensure obtaining a proper background about research ethics that would help in protecting authors’ right and minimizing research malpractice in general?	211 (65.9%)	109 (34.1%)	320

Table 5 Frequency Distribution of the Participant’s Knowledge Regarding Authorship Institutional Policy

	Yes	No	Not Sure	Do not Know	Total
Are you aware about your institution research authorship and publication conduct policy?	29 (9.0%)	222 (69.2%)	41 (12.8%)	29 (9.0%)	321
If Yes
Is gift authorship clearly defined in your institution authorship policy?	19 (5.9%)	33 (10.3%)	55 17.2%)	213 (66.6%)	320
According to your institution authorship policy, the order of authors depends on contribution to the manuscript	26 (8.1%)	33 10.3%	45 14.1%	216 67.5%	320
According to your institution authorship policy, providing funding, administrative or technical advice or patient’s data is a qualification for authorship	22 (6.9%)	30 (9.4%)	56 (17.4%)	212 (66.3%)	320
According to your institution authorship policy, It is the responsibility of the primary investigator to define the authorship list and its order	35 (10.9%)	22 (6.9%)	49 (15.2%)	215 (67.0%)	321

Table 6 Knowledge Score

Variables	Coefficient	Standard Error	95% Confidence Interval
Female	−0.732	0.86	−2.417 – 0.952
College^§
College of Dentistry	− 0.410	2.23	−4.798 – 3.979
College of Medicine	−0.545	2.45	−5.375 – 4.285
College of Nursing	2.441	3.13	−3.714 – 8.597
College of Pharmacy	0.804	2.29	−3.699 – 5.306
Academic year	0.253	0.51	−0.753 – 1.260
Having a project published	−0.376	1.55	−3.426 – 2.674
Having a completed project	1.770	1.09	−0.380 – 3.920
Being first author	−0.748	2.49	−5.654 – 4.158
Being corresponding author	4.859***	1.31	2.280 – 7.438
Aware of institutional authorship guidelines	2.230*	1.09	0.086 – 4.374
Constant	19.690***	2.32	15.133 – 2.247

Notes: *p<0.05. ***p<0.001. ^§College of Applied Medical Sciences as the reference category.