Original Article

A Descriptive Analysis of Authorship Within Medical Journals, 1995–2005

Authors: Marc E. Levsky, MD, Alex Rosin, MD, Troy P. Coon, MD, William L. Enslow, DO, Michael A. Miller, MD


Introduction: The emphasis on publications for promotion in academic medicine would lead one to the theory that authorship numbers would increase proportionally with this emphasis. To investigate authorship trends across a number of periodicals, we performed a descriptive study comparing two full years of published articles spaced ten years apart from five medical journals.

Methods: Physician reviewers each reviewed all articles of one medical journal for the 1995 and 2005 publication years. Reviewed journals included Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), Annals of Emergency Medicine (AnnEM), Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), Journal of Trauma (JT), and New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Data collected for each article were number of authors, ordinal number of the corresponding author, type of study described, whether the described study was a multicenter trial, whether authorship listed included a “study group,” and whether any author was also an editor of the journal.

Results: A total of 2927 articles were published in the five journals in 1995, and of these, 1401 (47.9%) were analyzed after the exclusion criteria had been applied; for 2005 a total of 3630 articles were published and of these, 1351 (37.2%) were included in the analysis. Across all five journals the mean number of authors per article increased from 4.66 to 5.73 between 1995 and 2005 (P < 0.0001), and four of the five journals individually had statistically significant increases in the number of authors per article. More articles had a journal editor as an author in 2005 (increased from 7.8% to 11.0%, P = 0.004), though no single journal had a statistically significant increase.

Conclusion: We describe a trend of increasing mean authors, editorial authorship, study groups, and multicenter trials over time with fewer solo authors now publishing original research or case reports. The academic medical community must pursue an authorship requirement consensus to assure that a standard of contribution for all authors on a given paper is met.

Key Points

* Among the five journals studied, the mean number of authors on each article increased by approximately one, or 23%, from 1995 to 2005.

* In 2005, editorial authorship of noneditorials had increased, as had the number of articles written by study groups, and the number of articles that were the product of multicenter trials.

* The categories of studies published did not change significantly between 1995 and 2005.

* The cause of these trends is unknown, but may involve increasing pressure on academic physicians to publish articles.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.


1. Bhandari M, Einhorn TA, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Who did what? (Mis) perceptions about authors’ contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A:1605–1609.
2. Gaeta TJ. Authorship: "Law" and order. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:297–301.
3. Khan KS, Nwosu CR, Khan SF, et al. A controlled analysis of authorship trends over two decades. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:503–507.
4. Carey RM, Wheby MS, Reynolds RE. Evaluating faculty clinical excellence in the academic health sciences center. Acad Med 1993;68:813–817.
5. Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW, et al. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:711–716.
6. Bates T, Anic A, Marusic M, et al. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA 2004;292:86–88.
7. Yankauer A. How blind is blind review? Am J Public Health 1991;81:843–845.
8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Haematologica 2004;89:264.
9. Jones AH. Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Sci Eng Ethics 2003;9:243–256.