Advertisement
Editorial

Ghostwriting Revisited: New Perspectives but Few Solutions in Sight

  • Published: August 30, 2011
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001084
  • Published in PLOS Medicine

Reader Comments (14)

Post a new comment on this article

Definition of ghostwriting?

Posted by AdamJacobs on 31 Aug 2011 at 08:19 GMT

problem of ghostwriting
http://plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001084#article1.body1.sec1.p2

It is a shame that ghostwriting is not defined here. I and, as far as I'm aware, most other informed commentators define it as substantial contributions to a published paper by someone who is not mentioned in the paper, either as a byline author or by a description of their contribution in the acknowledgements section. However, some of the papers cited in this article use a different definition, describing ghostwriting as a substantial contribution by someone who is not credited as a byline author, even if their role is described transparently and fully in an acknowledgements section. There are many places in this paper where the precise definition of ghostwriting is important for understanding the points being made.

Competing interests declared: As above