Authorship
From: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.
by Nicholas H. Steneck
Researchers share the results of their works with colleagues and the public in a variety of ways. Early results are usually shared during laboratory meetings, in seminars, and at professional meetings. Final results are usually communicated to others through scholarly articles and books. Public communication takes place through press releases, public announcements, newspaper articles, and public testimony. All forms of publication should present:
- A full and fair description of the work undertaken.
- An accurate report of the results.
- An honest and open assessment of the findings.
Deceptive authorship practices are arguably the greatest daily source of corruption in the sciences. Some examples include:
- Authorship by authority. A department chair or division chief or laboratory director either requires or permits his or her name to be placed on documents emanating from the unit. The most common justifications for this deception is that the leader either paid for the work, wrote the grant, provided resources, or in some other way was necessary for the work. But these are inadequate justifications - it is a deceptive mistake to include someone who did not do any of the work directly related to the part of the project described in the article.
- Gift, courtesy or honorary authorship. Attributing authorship to especially prestigious or socially "useful" colleagues. The problem here is still that the beneficiaries of these courtesies did not do any of the work. In other contexts, a well-liked student or lab technician might be rewarded with authorship; but this, too, is inappropriate if the student or tech's contributions were not adequate to justify bona fide co-authorship.
- Political authorship. This is related both to authorship by authority and courtesy authorship. The idea behind it seems to be that certain (important) colleagues will be angry, hurt or disappointed if they are not included as co-authors - despite that they did not do any of the work.
- Ghost authorship. Awarding authorship of a paper to someone (often a noted scientist) who is either unrelated or only peripherally related with the project, for a fee, in order to lend more credibility to the work.
It should be clear that such deceptions are additional forms of corruption or pollution of the scientific corpus. If you did not do any of the work, you should not get any of the credit. RULE OF THUMB: "If you are willing to TAKE CREDIT, you also must be willing to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY."
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established criteria for authorship. Authorship credit should be based on:
- Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
- Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
- Final approval of the version to be published.
Collaborators should discuss authorship at the start of their collaboration. The publication guidelines for many journals state that:
- The order of authors must not change without permission of all living authors once the article has been submitted for publication.
- Although coauthors may remove their names after that time, no author's name is to be removed by others.
- No authors names may be added after submission.