CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: Analysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Frequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research.
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: Analysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Frequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research.