8/12/2019 Authorship Determination Norms

1/2

Authorship Determinations

Determining authorship is critical to establish legitimate ownership and control of the work.Obviously, authorship conveys credit and recognition. These benefits also carry a great deal ofweight in promotion and tenure decisions. Given these rights and benefits, there are alsoresponsibilities. Authors accept accountability and responsibility for the validity of the work.They also must accept the obligation to share data and/or research materials, particularly whenanother researcher makes a valid request for the purpose of replicating the research to validatethe findings.

Professional societies have guidelines on who can be considered an author. Some examples:

The American Chemical Society states that those who made significant scientificcontributions to the work should be listed as co-authors. Those who make lessercontributions should be indicated in acknowledgments section in the publication (seeACS Ethical Guidelines to Publications of Chemical Research).

The American Psychological Association in its Ethical Principles of Psychologistsand Code of Conduct provides that authorship should be determined based on the

relative contributions of those involved in the research.

The National Academy of Sciences has stated in its book Responsible Science(1992): There is general acceptance of the principle that each named author hasmade a significant intellectual contribution to the paper.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors sets up three criteria andauthors are expected to meet all three: (1) that the individual has made substantialcontributions to the conception, design, or acquisition of data, or analysis andinterpretation of data, (2) that the individual drafted the work or was responsible for

reviewing it critical for intellectual content, and (3) that the individual has finalapproval of the version to be published. (see http://www.icmje.org)

Researchers and authors should be familiar with the ethical guidelines or code of conduct that ispublished by the professional association in their field. The decisions may not always be clear-cut and sometimes a good deal of discussion may take place between and among authors over thorder of listing authors. Still, these decision must be made on the basis of actual contributionsand should never be determined on the basis of the power or influence of any individual mayhave or on the basis of doing someone a favor by naming him or her as a co-author.

Some individuals may make contributions to the work but their contributions do not qualify themto be named as co-authors. For instance, a person may have provided technical assistance in theresearch or provided financial support or a gift of materials. While the author may be grateful,these actions do not qualify the person to be named a co-author. Other similar actions wouldinclude:

performing a literature search;

offering advice on the research or manuscript;

providing assistance in preparing the manuscript;

8/12/2019 Authorship Determination Norms

2/2

making suggestions on revising the manuscript.

To express gratitude for the foregoing, the author should cite the individuals by name in anacknowledgments section. It is important to recognize contributions, but it is critical to keepthem in perspective and fir the level of recognition and credit to the actual circumstances.

Other Ethical Considerations

1. Deciding when it is time to publish: The author must believe that the work will make a

significant advance in currently available knowledge and research. He or she must be confidentin the data and findings. A lack of confidence is a signal that the data may be incomplete and thefindings, therefore, possibly invalid. Premature publication, rather than enhancing ones career,could very well jeopardize ones reputation and standing among his or her colleagues. Obviouslythere is some truth to the clich publish or perish. It can create pressure on researchers topublish as quickly as possible. Doing so, however, when there is a lack of confidence in the dataand findings, could very well have very deleterious effects on ones career.

2. Avoiding redundant publications: In order to pad their publication records, some researchersdecide to take steps that are ill-advised and unethical. For instance, they may engage in

redundant publications. Here are some examples of how this can happen. First, the same ideas,data, and findings may be submitted to multiple journals in the hope of being published in morethan one place. Second, articles can be submitted which are really nothing more than minorextensions of previously published ideas or less than significant expansions of published datasets. Third, authors may decide to publish in what is called least publishable units (LPU).These LPUs are short research reports, letters, are articles that are actually publishing fragmentsof the complete data. The work is organized so that the LPU is made to look like a legitimatestudy, when in reality they are parts of a larger whole. Again, these practices are followed tofalsely increase ones publication record. There are, however, a misuse of valuable space injournals and serve to block other more legitimate articles from being published. If the lists of

authors in various articles is not the same, the practice of redundant publication can also give thefalse impression that the research has been replicated and, therefore, gives an unwarranted boostto the credibility of the data and/or author(s).