Gift, guest & ghost authorship in biomedical publications: definitions, prevalence, impacts, detection and prevention. Scoping review

Introduction Inappropriate authorship practices, including gift, guest, and ghost authorship, are a recognized problem in biomedical and basic science publishing. These behaviors undermine research integrity, distort attribution of credit and responsibility, and threaten public trust in scientific literature. Identifying the definitions, prevalence, manifestations, consequences, detection, and prevention of inappropriate authorship is critical for maintaining ethical and scientific standards. Objectives The objective of this analysis was to systematically examine scientific literature published since 2000 that defines and differentiates gift, guest, and ghost authorship in biomedical and basic science publications, reports their frequency and manifestations, analyzes their ethical, scientific, and public health consequences, describes detection and prevention methods, and documents real cases through quantitative or qualitative approaches. Method A structured review of relevant scientific literature was performed. Studies included primary research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses explicitly addressing definitions, prevalence, consequences, detection strategies, prevention measures, and documented cases of inappropriate authorship in biomedical and basic science publication contexts. Methods analyzed included large-scale cross-sectional surveys, analyses of retraction databases, integrative reviews, and institutional audits, covering multiple countries and journal types. Results The review found that the unethical assignment of authorship is common, with gift/honorary authorship affecting 20–60% of publications, and ghost authorship 5–10%, with higher rates reported in some regions and disciplines. Over 700 cases of authorship-related retractions have been documented. The main detection methods were anonymous surveys of authors and audits of contribution statements. Preventive strategies included stronger editorial policies, explicit contribution taxonomies, author agreements, and research ethics training. Conclusions Inappropriate authorship practices remain frequent and pose significant ethical, scientific, and public health risks. While empirical evidence supports the use of prevention and detection measures, persistent challenges exist in ensuring accurate authorship attribution. Enhanced policy implementation and international standards are needed to mitigate these risks and promote research integrity.