Publications Ethics – Authorship Issues

by Carin Andersson

Carin Andersson, 
Research Professor, Norway

A few years ago, I was asked to be part of a small group to develop research ethical guidelines for my home institution. For the first time, I had to go into depth of the various components of research ethics and the topics that we addressed were many. We read and discussed guidelines for scientific dishonesty, protection of people and animals involved in research, protection of the environment, contract-based research, good research practice, as well as publishing, writing, and co-authorship. I started to be invited to give presentations on research ethics, and it quickly became clear that the audience was primarily interested in issues related to publication ethics, in particular matters concerning authorship. The topic of authorship sparked great interest amongst both early-career and more experienced researchers. It also became clear that things had not improved much since I was a Ph.D. student. The early-career scientists today seem to be working out of the same generally poor knowledge of existing guidelines concerning authorship issues, as do the more experienced researchers.

Publishing our research is fundamental for our careers, and it is easy to get into conflicts concerning authorship issues. More often than not, it seems, people tend to either not know these recommendations well enough or not use them. Early-career researchers are also especially at risk. It is difficult to argue with, perhaps senior, scientists if you do not have the background knowledge and tools you need for such a discussion. To be in a conflict with your advisor or other people you are working closely together with can be very challenging. The consequence of not having their name on a publication, or losing the first authorship, is often more significant for the early-career scientist than it is for the more experienced researchers. Scientists are in general evaluated against the number of publications, as well as where in the ordered list of authors they appear in, during the hiring decision. For early-career scientists the number of publications and, in particular, the number of first author publications they have on their publication list, becomes essential in the often competitive job market.





So, when are you an author?

There are several sets of publication ethical guidelines out there, but I think it is safe to say that most of us (check with your home institution) should follow the recommendations laid down by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”. Many institutions do follow these recommendations and it is useful to know them. These recommendations are also known as the “Vancouver rules”, as a group of editors met in Vancouver in 1978 to write the first recommendations. The recommendations have been updated several times since they were written, most recently in December 2018. One of the issues that these recommendations cover is the definition of the role of authors and contributors, and this is where the rubber meets the road.

The ICMJE recommends that authorship is based on four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

However, most people appear to have only heard about the first criteria. It is not usual that the first author argues in an authorship conflict that “I don´t think you have contributed substantially (or significantly) enough”. Addressing only the first criteria is, of course, wrong, but it is also not the privilege of the first author to identify who is an author and who is not. According to the recommendations, it is the persons conducting the work that are responsible for determining who meets these criteria. Preferably this should start early in a project when planning the work. The recommendations further state that: “In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.” This is a very important part of the recommendation as most people appear to see authorship as some type of reward or compensation for their “substantial contribution” to the work. An author takes responsibility for a specific part of the paper as well as for the integrity of the paper as a whole. Authorship status is given to those who deserve credit and take responsibility for the work.

What can I do to avoid problems?

Over the recent few years, I have had a significant number of “cases” explained to me by both early-career and more experienced researchers. Typical for most of these cases is that the people involved do not know the current recommendations and, above anything else, there was little or no communication concerning authorship amongst the researcher doing the work. The discussion should start early, as soon as there is an inkling that what you are doing/discussing with other scientists may develop into a paper. Make sure everybody is on board, i.e., review the guidelines you are following. Discuss who will take on the role as first author and co-authors. It is not unusual to add co-authors along the way as the work progresses, so re-evaluate and keep the recommendation in mind as the work advances. Also, discuss what you do with those who do not meet all four criteria but should still be regarded as contributors and acknowledged. Those should of course also be part of the discussion and know what is going on. Not involving contributors enough is a common mistake that may quickly result in conflicts. Do not make “assumptions” concerning your own or others involvement. Communication is key.





What can I do if I am in an authorship conflict?

Should I contact the journal to settle authorship disputes? No, you should not. According to the recommendations, it is the responsibility of the researchers involved in the work to make sure that all named author meet all four criteria. Most conflicts are avoided if the recommendations are followed. However, if you still, after trying to solve the conflict within the group of scientists involved in the work, find yourself in this type of conflict, you should contact the institution(s) where the work was performed and ask them to investigate. Many institutions have a research ethics committee, and you should contact members of this committee.

Carin Andersson, Ph.D.
Researcher I (Research Professor), NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bergen, Norway

If you have questions or comments concerning Carin's post, please leave a comment below, or send her an email. You can also connect with her on Twitter and follow her research on ResearchGate.