Peer Review Congress 2022

September 10, 2022

Chicago, United States

Numbers and Trends in Authorship of Published Meta-analyses, 1990-2019


and scientometrics


ethics and ethical concerns

authorship and contributorship


Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the evolution of authorship trends in MEDLINE-indexed meta-analyses over time. Although similar studies do exist,1 they all have major limitations (cross-sectional nature, small sample sizes, etc) that do not allow for reliable conclusions to be drawn. This may be the first work to study authorship patterns in all MEDLINE-indexed meta-analyses published.

Design In PubMed, the search filters of study type and publication date were applied, and the search was restricted to meta-analyses published until December 31, 2019. Single research group names included in the article’s title were considered equivalent to 1 coauthor. Articles without author names were excluded from the study.

Results A total of 116,710 meta-analyses were analyzed. The most meta-analyses per year were published in 2019 (1.2%), followed by 2018 (1.1%). The overall mean (SD) number of authors was 5.4 (4). The most common number of authors was 4, found in 16.4% of articles, followed by 5 authors (15.4%). The mean number of authors per article increased significantly over time, from 3 in 1990-1994 to 5.8 in 2015- 2019. Single-author articles represented 24% of all articles in 1990-1994 and only 1.2% in 2015-2019. The number of articles authored by 15 or more authors increased from 0% in 1990-1994 to 3.2% in 2015-2019.

Conclusions The reported trend of authorship proliferation1,2 was also observed in meta-analyses, with a current mean number of 5.8 authors per article. It is doubtful whether this increase can only be attributed to increasing research complexity.2Scientists should adhere to the existing guidelines and include in the author list only contributors who qualify for inclusion. Journals should adopt more strict policies to confirm that only substantial contributions are getting credited with authorship.


  1. Gülen S, Fonnes S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Increasing number of authors in Cochrane reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2020;13(1):34-41. doi:10.1111/jebm.12371
  2. Papatheodorou SI, Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JPA. Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):546-551. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.017

Conflict of Interest Disclosures None reported.

Next from Peer Review Congress 2022

Development of the Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies (QUAPAS) Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Prognostic Accuracy Studies

Development of the Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies (QUAPAS) Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Prognostic Accuracy Studies

Peer Review Congress 2022

Jenny Lee

10 September 2022

Similar lecture

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

Select topic of interest (you can select more than one)


  • All Lectures
  • For Librarians
  • Resource Center
  • Free Trial
Underline Science, Inc.
1216 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

© 2023 Underline - All rights reserved