While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and (...) content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship. (shrink)

Responsible conduct of research and ethical publishing practices are debatable issues in the higher education literature. The literature suggests that ‘authorship disputes’ are associated with multi-author paper publication and linked to ethical publishing practices. A few research studies argue authorship matters of a multi-author paper publication, but do not explain how to arrange author list meaningfully in a multi-author paper. How is a principal author of a multi-author paper to be decided? The literature also does not clarify whether language editor (...) could claim authorship for a research paper publication? The paper adopts qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions. While answering these questions, the paper critically examines ‘authorship disputes’ and ‘types of authorship’ relating to research paper publication practices. At the end, the paper proposes a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication. (shrink)

Attitudes to, and practices of, scientific authorship vary. We have studied this variation among researchers in a university hospital and medical school in Norway.

This paper invokes the conceptual framework of Bourdieu to analyse the mechanisms, which help to maintain inappropriate authorship practices and the functions these practices may serve. Bourdieu’s social theory with its emphasis on mechanisms of domination can be applied to the academic field, too, where competition is omnipresent, control mechanisms of authorship are loose, and the result of performance assessment can be a matter of symbolic life and death for the researchers. This results in a problem of game-theoretic nature, where (...) researchers’ behaviour will be determined more by the logic of competition, than by individual character or motives. From this follows that changing this practice requires institutionalized mechanisms, and change cannot be expected from simply appealing to researchers’ individual conscience. The article aims at showing that academic capital is translated into honorary authorship. With little control, undetected honorary authorship gives the appearance of possessing intellectual capital. In this way a dominant position is made to be seen as natural result of intellectual ability or scientific merit, which makes it more acceptable to those in dominated positions. The final conclusion of this paper is that undemocratic authorship decisions and authorship based performance assessment together are a form of symbolic violence. (shrink)

In medicine, professional behavior and ethics are often rule-based. We assessed whether instruction on formal criteria of authorship affected the decision of students about authorship dilemmas and whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept. A prospective non-randomized intervention study involved 203s year medical students who did (n = 107) or did not (n = 96) received a lecture on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria. Both groups had to read 3 vignettes and answer 4 (...) questions related to the distinction between conventional and moral domains. Written justification of student’ choices whether the authorship in a vignette was right or wrong was rated by 4 independent raters as based on justice or a rule. Formal instruction had no effect on students’ decisions on authorship in the vignettes (44, 34 and 39% ICMJE-consistent answers for 3 vignettes, respectively, by students receiving instruction vs. 38, 42 and 30% for those without instruction; P > 0.161 for all vignettes). For all dilemmas, more students decided contrary to ICMJE criteria and considered their decisions to be a matter of obligation and not a choice and to be general across situations and sciences. They were willing to change their decision if a rule was different only for peer situations but not for mentor–mentee situations. The number of students who used rule-based justification of their ICMJE criteria-consistent decisions was significantly higher in the instructed than in the uninstructed group. Instruction about formal authorship criteria had no effect on student’s decisions about authorship dilemmas and their decisions were related to the moral rather than a conventional domain. Teaching about authorship and other professionalism and integrity issues may benefit from interventions that bring intuitive processes into awareness instead of those fostering rule-based reasoning. (shrink)

Who should be the author(s) of an academic paper? This question is becoming increasingly pressing, due to the increasing prevalence and scale of scientific collaboration, and the corresponding diversity of authorship practices in different disciplines and subdisciplines. This paper addresses the conceptual issues underlying authorship, with an eye to ameliorating authorship practices. The first part of the paper distinguishes five roles played by authorship attributions: allocating credit, constructing a speaker, enabling credibility judgements, supporting accountability, and creating an intellectual marketplace. The (...) second part of the paper argues that distinguishing these functions helps us see that at least some of the confusions around authorship are due to tensions between these functions. The final part of the paper suggests a way to resolve these conceptual confusions, which we will call the CSWG proposal. This proposal suggests replacing authorship with a bundle of roles tailored to the functions of authorship—contributor, spokesperson, writer, and guarantor—which can be distributed in a number of different ways. (shrink)

Background Although most biomedical journals have adopted the authorship criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in 1985, little is known about the extent Iranian researchers are familiar with these criteria. Objectives The study seeks to evaluate the number of authors fulfilling ICMJE authorship criteria (considering the names mentioned in the byline of 12 issues of the Archives of Iranian Medicine (AIM) journal), and to determine the type of contribution made by each author. Materials and Methods (...) The fulfilment of authorship criteria and contribution percentage of each researcher were evaluated according to their position in the bylines of 12 issues of the Archives of Iranian Medicine (AIM) journal published from January 2005 to October 2007. We asked corresponding authors to answer our questionnaire which was designed to assess authorship criteria and contribution. Results A total of 576 researchers' names were in the studied article bylines. The ratio of authors to articles was 3.48 in 2005, 4.06 in 2006, and 5.59 in 2007. Sixty three out of 128 corresponding authors (49.21%) responded to our questionnaire, so we evaluated 296 researchers' names, from which 186 authors (62.83%) met the authorship criteria; 110 authors (37.17%) were identified as guest authors, 97 of which deserved to be mentioned in the acknowledgement section. The major criteria used for authors order was their participation in research projects in addition to article writing, mostly determined by the corresponding author. Two authors (0.67%) whose names were not mentioned in the articles were considered to be ghost writers as the articles were based on the results of their thesis. Conclusion It is essential to make Iranian researchers familiar with ICMJE authorship criteria and to encourage applying the criteria in scientific writing. (shrink)

BackgroundAlthough most biomedical journals have adopted the authorship criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in 1985, little is known about the extent Iranian researchers are familiar with these criteria.ObjectivesThe study seeks to evaluate the number of authors fulfilling ICMJE authorship criteria (considering the names mentioned in the byline of 12 issues of the Archives of Iranian Medicine (AIM) journal), and to determine the type of contribution made by each author.Materials and MethodsThe fulfilment of authorship criteria (...) and contribution percentage of each researcher were evaluated according to their position in the bylines of 12 issues of the Archives of Iranian Medicine (AIM) journal published from January 2005 to October 2007. We asked corresponding authors to answer our questionnaire which was designed to assess authorship criteria and contribution.ResultsA total of 576 researchers' names were in the studied article bylines. The ratio of authors to articles was 3.48 in 2005, 4.06 in 2006, and 5.59 in 2007. Sixty three out of 128 corresponding authors (49.21%) responded to our questionnaire, so we evaluated 296 researchers' names, from which 186 authors (62.83%) met the authorship criteria; 110 authors (37.17%) were identified as guest authors, 97 of which deserved to be mentioned in the acknowledgement section. The major criteria used for authors order was their participation in research projects in addition to article writing, mostly determined by the corresponding author.Two authors (0.67%) whose names were not mentioned in the articles were considered to be ghost writers as the articles were based on the results of their thesis.ConclusionIt is essential to make Iranian researchers familiar with ICMJE authorship criteria and to encourage applying the criteria in scientific writing. (shrink)

BackgroundDisputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.Main bodyWhen authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials (...) between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals’ authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.ConclusionRather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members. (shrink)

ObjectiveA high prevalence of authorship problems can have a severe impact on the integrity of the research process. We evaluated the authorship practices of clinicians from the same university hospital in 2019 to compare them with our 2003 data and to find out if the practices had changed.MethodsPractitioners were randomly selected from the hospital database. The telephone interviews were conducted by a single researcher using a simplified interview guide compared with the one used in 2003. The doctors were informed that (...) their answers would be aggregated without the possibility of identifying the respondents. During the interviews, the researcher ticked the boxes with the answers on a paper file.ResultsWe interviewed 26 clinicians from various medical specialties. They were unfamiliar with the ICMJE criteria for writing medical articles and felt that these criteria were not well met in general. With regard to ways of reducing the practice of honorary authors, the participants clearly felt that asking for a signature was hypocritical and of little use. The ghost authors were well known; this practice was considered as rather rare. The ‘publish or perish’ has always been cited as being responsible for bad practices. We compared these results with those observed in 2003 and no improvement has been observed in the past 15 years.ConclusionFor the second time in France, within a 15-year interval, we have shown that the ICMJE criteria were ignored and that honorary authorship was frequent. (shrink)

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices—in particular, the impact on (...) the evaluation of one’s work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action. (shrink)