Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 4 (1), e19

Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials


Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials

Peter C Gøtzsche et al. PLoS Med.


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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 65 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA. 1998;280:222–224. - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, et al. Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials [research letter] JAMA. 2006;295:1645–1646. - PubMed
    1. Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–2465. - PubMed
    1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Philadelphia: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; 2004 October. Available: Accessed 15 August 2006.
    1. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Principles on conduct of clinical trials and communication of clinical trial results. Washington (D. C.): PhRMA; 2004 June. Accessed 15 August 2006.

Publication types

MeSH terms