Variations in Courtesy Authorship Perceptions and Practices Among Modern Surgical Journals: The Generation Gap

Background: Academic journals have adopted strict authorship guidelines to eliminate the addition of authors who have not met criteria, also known as "courtesy authors." We sought to analyze current perceptions, practices, and academic rank-related variations in courtesy authorship use among modern surgical journals.

Methods: Authors who published original research articles in 2014-2015 in eight surgical journals were surveyed and categorized as junior (JF) or senior faculty (SF) by years in practice. Responses regarding courtesy authorship perceptions and practices were analyzed. Subanalyses were performed based on journal impact factor.

Results: A total of 455 authors responded (34% JF versus 66% SF). SF were older (52 versus 39 y) and more predominantly male (80% versus 61%) versus JF. JF more frequently added a courtesy author to the index publication versus SF (23% versus 13%, P = 0.02), but had similar historical rates of adding courtesy authors (58% versus 51%, P = not significant) or being added as a courtesy author (29% versus 37%, P = not significant). JF felt courtesy authorship was more common in their practice and felt more pressure by superiors to add courtesy authors. Perceptions regarding the practice of courtesy authorship differed significantly, with 70% of JF feeling courtesy authorship use has not declined versus 45% of SF (P < 0.05). Both JF and SF cited courtesy authorship positives, including avoiding author conflicts (17% versus 33%, respectively) and increasing morale (25% versus 45%, respectively).

Conclusions: Courtesy authorship use continues to be common among both JF and SF. However, perceptions about the benefits, harms, and pressures vary significantly by academic rank and with journal impact factor.