Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Timing and coverage of surveys.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

List of dependent variables, a description of how those variables are constructed, and the table in which they appear.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Manipulation of authorship and citation across academia.

Percentage of respondents who report that honorary authors have been added to their research projects, they have been coerced by editor to add citations, or who have padded their citations, sorted by field of study and type of manipulation.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 3.

Adding honorary authors to manuscripts: Estimate coefficients and odds ratios.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Number of times authors added to manuscripts: Estimated coefficients and incidence rate ratios.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Adding honorary authors to grant proposals: Estimated coefficients and odds ratios.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 2.

Reasons for adding honorary authors to grants and manuscripts.

Each pair of columns presents the percentage of responses who selected a particular reason for adding an honorary author to a manuscript or a grant proposal. Director refers to responses stating, “this individual was the director of the lab or facility used in the research.” Authority refers to responses stating, “this individual occupies a position of authority and can influence my career.” Mentor, “this is my mentor”; colleague, “this a colleague I wanted to help”; reciprocity, “I was included or expect to be included as a co-author on their work”; data, “they had data I needed”; reputation, “their reputation increases the chances of the work being published (or funded)”; funding, “they had funding we could apply to the research”; and reviewers, “the grant reviewers suggested we add co-authors.”

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 6.

Reasons authors added to manuscripts: Estimated coefficients.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Reasons authors are added to grant proposals: Estimated coefficients.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 3.

Disapproval of coercive citation by major academic group.

The first column in each cluster presents the percentage of respondents from each major academic group who either strongly agree or agree with the statement the coercive citations, “is inappropriate.” The second column is the percentage that agrees to, “[it] reduces the prestige of the journal.” The third column reflects agreement to, “are less likely to submit work to a journal that coerces.”

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 8.

Existence of coercive citation: Estimated coefficients and odds ratios.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Frequency of coercive citation: Estimated coefficients and incidence rate ratios.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Table 10.

Journals that have coerced: Estimated coefficients, odds ratios, and incident rate ratios (all journals).

More »

Table 10 Expand

Table 11.

Journals that have coerced, top 30 journals: Estimated coefficients, odds ratios, and incident rate ratios.

More »

Table 11 Expand

Table 12.

Padding citations in manuscripts: Estimated coefficients and odds ratios.

More »

Table 12 Expand

Table 13.

Padding citations in grant proposals: Estimated coefficients and odds ratios.

More »

Table 13 Expand