Background: There is much concern regarding undisclosed corporate authorship (“ghostwriting”) in the peer-reviewed medical literature. However, there are no studies of how disclosure of ghostwriting alone impacts the perceived credibility of research results.

Findings: We conducted a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses (n = 67), using a fictional study of antidepressant medication. The vignette described a randomized controlled trial and gave efficacy and adverse effect rates. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two authorship conditions, either (a) traditional authorship (n = 35) or (b) ghostwritten paper (n = 32), and then completed a perceived credibility scale. Our primary hypothesis was that the median perceived credibility score total would be lower in the group assigned to the ghostwritten paper. Our secondary hypotheses were that participants randomized to the ghostwritten condition would be less likely to (a) recommend the medication, and (b) want the psychiatrist in the vignette as their own clinician. We also asked respondents to estimate efficacy and adverse effect rates for the medication.

There was a statistically significant difference in perceived credibility among those assigned to the ghostwriting condition. This amounted to a difference of 9.0 points on the 35-point perceived credibility scale as tested through the Mann–Whitney U test. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of recommending the medication, wanting the featured clinician as their own, or in estimates of efficacy or adverse effects (p > .05 for all such comparisons).

Conclusion: In this study, disclosure of ghostwriting resulted in lower perceived credibility ratings.

African American students are one of the historically disadvantaged groups by the public education system. Related to this phenomenon is the overrepresentation of African American children in special education due to disability diagnoses, which has been referred to as disproportionality. It has been hypothesized that disproportionality is due to poverty or a cultural mismatch between primarily white, middle-class teachers and African American students. Using a sample of African American children in special education from Memphis, Tennessee, this secondary data analysis explored the relationship between children's behavioral and educational outcomes and their environment, efficacy beliefs, and the impact of an intervention, the Nurse-Family Partnership. This study also explored differences in children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors by self-report, children's mothers and children's teachers. Using multiple imputation and regression analyses, the results indicated the following: 1) children's self-efficacy and number of hours in special education were associated with children's academic achievement, 2) mothers' and teachers' ratings of children's behaviors differed from children's self-report of their behaviors, 3) African American boys are more likely to experience acting-out behaviors, while African American girls are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, 4) children were less likely to experience anxiety and depression if their mother believed that she had control over circumstances in her life. These findings are discussed in light of Brofenbrenner's ecological systems theory and Bandura's social cognitive theory.