Who deserves credit, who receives credit? A cross-sectional survey on the handling of co-authorship in medical dissertations in Germany

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the awareness and application of the internationally recognized Vancouver guidelines on co-authorship among doctoral students in medicine across North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, the federal state with the highest number of medical faculties (nine) nationwide. Although authorship practices have been widely discussed in medical research, empirical data on doctoral students' awareness of and adherence to these guidelines remain limited, particularly in Germany. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional online survey among 147 former doctoral students who completed their dissertations at a medical faculty during the last two years. Participants were recruited via mailing lists, social media, and doctoral graduation ceremonies between December 2024 and June 2025. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. To examine further relationships, correlational analyses were conducted using chi-square tests. RESULTS: While 84% (n = 123/147) of the participants considered the Vancouver authorship guidelines important, 61% (n = 90/147) reported that at least one criterion of the Vancouver guidelines had not been fulfilled in their work. Furthermore, 56% (n = 82/147) reported never having received any information about the guidelines. Among doctoral students supervised by male supervisors (n = 103), female doctoral students had lower odds of receiving information about authorship guidelines (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.83) and of reporting a clear policy regarding them (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81) compared with male doctoral students. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings indicate that, among the surveyed cohort of former medical doctoral students in Germany, self-reported adherence to authorship guidelines was limited and observed gender-related differences. Variations in the perceived dissemination and implementation of ethical authorship practices were associated with the supervisory gender constellation. These results underscore the need for more robust institutional frameworks, systematic education on authorship ethics, and clearer accountability mechanisms in the supervision of doctoral research.