, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 763–784 | Cite as

Scholarly gratitude in five geographical contexts: a diachronic and cross-generic approach of the acknowledgment paratext in medical discourse (1950–2010)

  • Françoise Salager-Meyer
  • María Ángeles Alcaraz-Ariza
  • Marianela Luzardo Briceño
  • Georges Jabbour


This study analyzed the use of acknowledgements in medical articles published in five countries (Venezuela, Spain, France, UK and USA) from 1950 to 2010. For each country, we selected 54 papers (18 research papers, 18 reviews and 18 case reports), evenly distributed over six decades, from two medical journals with the highest impact factors. Only papers written by native speakers in the national language were included. The evolution of the frequency and length of acknowledgments was analyzed. Of 270 articles studied, 127 (47%) had acknowledgments. The presence of acknowledgments was associated with country (p = 0.001), this section being more common and longer in US and UK journals. Acknowledgments were most common in research papers (70 vs. 40% in case reports and 31% in reviews, p < 0.001). Reviews without acknowledgments were significantly more common than those with (69 vs. 31%), but there was no trend in case reports. Altogether, articles with acknowledgments predominated only after 2000. Since the frequency of use of acknowledgments remained stable over time in US and UK journals but increased in non-Anglophone journals, the overall increase is attributed to the change in non-English publications. Authors acknowledged sub-authorship more in English language journals than in those published in the national language in France, Spain and Venezuela. However, the practice of acknowledging is increasing in non-Anglophone journals. We conclude that the concept of intellectual indebtedness does not only differ from one geographical context to another, but also over time and from one academic genre to another.


Acknowledgments Medicine Diachronic Genre Research article Review article Case reports 



This research was supported by Grant no. M-976-09-06A from the University of the Andes Humanistic, Scientific and Technological Research Center (CDCHT).


  1. Atkinson, D. (1999). Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Banks, D. (2005). The case of Perrin and Thompson: An example of the use of a mini corpus. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Belcher, D. (2005). Editorial. English for Specific Purposes, 14, 119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Ari, E. (1987). On acknowledgments in ethnographies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 43(1), 63–84.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., & McColl, E. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. British Medical Journal, 314, 1009–1012.Google Scholar
  10. Budden, A. (2010). Diversity begets diversity: An analysis of relationship between author, reviewer, and editor populations. European Science Editing, 36(2), 31–34.Google Scholar
  11. Burgess, S. (2002). Packed houses and intimate gatherings: Audience and rhetorical structure. In J. Flowerdew & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Academic discourse (pp. 197–215). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  12. Carameli, B., & Rocha e Silva, M. (2010). Brazilian medical journals are now facing a big challenge. European Science Editing, 36(2), 38–39.Google Scholar
  13. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, Special issue on Contrastive Rhetoric in EAP, 3(4), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin, B. (1995). The Scolar’s courtesy. The role of acknowledgments in the primary communication process. Los Angeles: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar
  15. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resources mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal articles’paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909–1918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Rubio, L. (1993). The norms of acknowledgments in four humanities and social sciences disciplines. Journal of Documentation, 49(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Stifler, L. (1992). Patterns of acknowledgments. Journal of Documentation, 48(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronin, B., & Overfelt, K. (1994). The Scholar’s courtesy: A survey of acknowledgment behavior. The Journal of Documentation, 50(3), 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of Psychology and Philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible and invisible: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Faoite, D. (2010). Guest authorship: How common is it and what are the reasons behind it? The Write Stuff, 19(1), 32–34.Google Scholar
  24. Edge, D. (1979). Quantitative measures of communication in science. History of Science, 19, 102–134.Google Scholar
  25. Fiore, K. (2009). Study finds less ghost authorship, critics ask why. Med-page Today. Retrieved from
  26. Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approach to text analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gesuato, S. (2003). Thanking in writing: The case of Ph.D dissertation acknowledgments. In Paper presented at the 8th international pragmatics conference in Toronto (pp. 13–18).Google Scholar
  29. Gesuato, S. (2004). Acknowledgments in Ph.D dissertation: The complexity of thanking. In T. Torsello, C. Busà, M. Grazia, & S. Gesuato (Eds.), Lingua Inglese e Mediazione Linguistica. Ricerca e Didattica con Supporto Telematico (pp. 273–318). Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
  30. Giannoni, D. S. (1998). The genre of journal acknowledgments: Findings of a cross-disciplinary investigation. Linguistica e Filología, 6, 61–84.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Giannoni, D. S. (2002). Worlds of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgment texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giannoni, D.S. (2005). Evaluation in academic book acknowledgements (Bas) across texts and disciplines. In Paper presented at the XV European Symposium on Languages for Specific Purposes, Bergamo, Italy, August 29–September 2.Google Scholar
  33. Giannoni, D. S. (2006a). Book acknowledgments across disciplines and texts. In K. Hyland & M. Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 151–175). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  34. Giannoni, D. S. (2006b). Evidence of generic tension in academic book acknowledgments. In V. Bhatia & M. Gotti (Eds.), Explorations in specialized genres (pp. 21–42). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  35. Giles, C. L., & Councill, I. G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. In Proceedings of the national academy of science, 101(51), pp. 17599–17604.Google Scholar
  36. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  37. Gómez, I., Sancho, R., Bordons, M., & Fernández, M. T. (2006). La I+D en España a través de sus publicaciones y patentes. In J. Sebastián & E. Muñoz (Eds.), Radiografía de la investigación pública (pp. 275–302). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
  38. Graf, C., Battisti, W. P., Bridges, D., Bruce-Winkler, V., Conaty, J. M., Ellison, J. M., et al. (2009). International society for medical publication professionals. Research methods and reporting. Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: The GPP2 guidelines. British Medical Journal, 339, b4330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heffner, A. G. (1979). Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Social Studies of Science, 12, 535–558.Google Scholar
  40. Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hyland, K. (2003). Dissertation acknowledgments: The anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication, 20(3), 242–268.Google Scholar
  42. Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgments. English for Specific Purposes, 23(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). I would like to thank my supervisor. Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177.Google Scholar
  44. Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2006). Uniform requirements for manuscript submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publications. Retrieved from
  46. Jubb, M. (2010). Acknowledging the funders of research. European Science Editing, 36(2), 40.Google Scholar
  47. Kapoor, V. K. (1995). Polyauthoritis giftosa. The Lancet, 346, 1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kassirer, J., & Angell, M. (1991). On authorship and acknowledgment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 325(21), 1510–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lettrilliart, L., & Schott, A. M. (2007). Rédiger et publier un article de recherche en médecine générale. La Revue du Praticien, 21(774/775), 629–632.Google Scholar
  51. Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2008). Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. Journal of Higher Education, 709, 88–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lysenko, V. (2007). Inaccessible science literature in Eastern Europe. European Science Editing, 33(1), 10–13.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Mackintosh, K. A. (1972). Acknowledgment patterns in sociology. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Oregon.Google Scholar
  54. Martin Martin, P. (2003). A genre analysis of English and Spanish research paper abstracts in experimental social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marusic, A., & Marusic, M. (2010). A contribution to the authorship debate: Can we trust definitions and declarations. The Write Stuff, 19(1), 14–17.Google Scholar
  56. McCain, K. W. (1991). Communication, competition and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information on genetics. Science, Technologies and Human Values, 16(4), 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meyer, C. F. (2006). An interview with Charles F. Meyer by Mª Carmen Pérez-Llantada Auría, M. C. IBÉRICA, 12, 145–157.Google Scholar
  58. Modi, P., Hassan, A., Teng, J., & Chitwood, W. R. (2008). How many cardiac surgeons does it take to write a research article? Seventy years of authorship proliferation and internationalization in the cardiothoracic surgical literature. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 136, 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moreno, A. I. (2008). The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout, & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 25–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  60. Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into english for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In M. F. Ruiz Garrido, J. C. Palmer Silveira, & I. Fortanet-Gómez (Eds.), English for professional and academic purposes (pp. 57–71). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  61. Mullins, N. C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in American sociology. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  62. Mur Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Patel, N. (1973). Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77–92.Google Scholar
  64. Pelderman, A. K. S. (2007). Keep your hands off our impact factor. European Science Editing, 33(4), 98–99.Google Scholar
  65. Pignatelli, B., Maisonneuve, H., & Chapuis, F. (2005). Authorship ignorance: Views of researchers in French clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reyes, H., Jacard, M., & Herskovic, V. (2001). Authorship in a medical journal from a developing country. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
  67. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. Á., & Pabón Berbesí, B. (2009). Backstage solidarity in Spanish- and English-written medical research papers: Publication context and the acknowledgment paratext. Journal of the American Association of Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. Á., Pabón Berbesí, M., & Zambrano, N. (2006). Paying one’s intellectual debt: Acknowledgments in conventional vs. complementary/alternative medical research. In M. Gotti & F. Salager-Meyer (Eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts (pp. 407–430). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  69. Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. Á., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930–1995). English for Specific Purposes, 22, 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Salita, J. (2010). Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff, 19(1), 36–39.Google Scholar
  71. Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith, R. (2009). The beginning of the end for impact factors and journals. BMJ Group blogs. Retrieved from
  73. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres. Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Valero-Garcés, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Bonn, S., & Swales, J. M. (2007). English and French journal abstracts in the language sciences: Three exploratory studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. van Diest, P. J., Holzel, H., Burnett, D., & Croker, J. (2001). Impactitis: New cures for an old disease. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 54, 817–819.Google Scholar
  77. Wager, E. (2007). Authors, ghosts, damned lies and statisticians. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whenhui, L., Shouchu, Q., & Yue, Q. (2001). Authorship of published medical papers in three Chinese medical journals. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from
  79. Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Zore-Armanda, M. (2005). The science citation index and Europe: A point of view. European Science Editing, 31(3), 83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Françoise Salager-Meyer
    • 1
  • María Ángeles Alcaraz-Ariza
    • 2
  • Marianela Luzardo Briceño
    • 3
  • Georges Jabbour
    • 4
  1. 1.Facultad de MedicinaUniversidad de Los AndesMéridaVenezuela
  2. 2.Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasUniversidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias Económicas Y SocialesUniversidad de Los AndesMeridaVenezuela
  4. 4.Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad de Los AndesMeridaVenezuela

Personalised recommendations