Abstract

Authorship misuse is a well-documented problem that numerous scholars have scrutinized. Nevertheless, a comprehensive review is required to consolidate shared discoveries, emerging patterns, and persisting gaps in our current understanding. This study reviews published research on the practice and understanding of ethical authorship in the fields of biomedical and health research and provides a synthesis of the questionable practices identified in the retrieved systematic reviews and the prevalence of those practices. The methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for conducting umbrella reviews was followed. A systematic search was conducted including English and Spanish sources. Inclusion criteria encompassed systematic reviews (SRs) that addressed prevalent authorship practices and their ethical conflicts. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria. Findings indicate ghost authorship rates ranging from 0.7 to 91% and honorary authorship from 1 to 63%, reflecting substantial variation due to methodological diversity and population differences. Researchers’ awareness of authorship guidelines varied between 49% and 84%, emphasizing the need for improved education on responsible authorship. The disparities in adherence to authorship guidelines also underscore regional and disciplinary differences. The review highlights the complexities of authorship in multidisciplinary research, where diverse contributions challenge traditional authorship criteria, emphasizing the need for clearer guidelines to ensure fair recognition across varied disciplines. These findings emphasize the critical need to enhance methodological quality in authorship-related research and to promote robust training initiatives at all academic levels. Addressing these issues is essential for fostering transparency, ensuring ethical standards, and building trust in academic research.