Skip to main content

Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines


Guidelines on authorship requirements are common in biomedical journals but it is not known how authorship is defined by journals and scholarly professional organizations across research disciplines. Prevalence of authorship statements, their specificity and tone, and contributions required for authorship were assessed in 185 journals from Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 260 journals from Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and 651 codes of ethics from professional organizations from the online database of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Profession, USA. In SCI, 53 % of the top-ranked journals had an authorship statement, compared with 32 % in SSCI. In a random sample of A&HCI-indexed journals, only 6 % of the journals addressed authorship. Only 71 (11 %) codes of ethics carried a statement on authorship. Almost all journals had defined authorship criteria compared with 33 % of the ethics codes (\( \chi_{1}^{2} \) = 75.975; P < 0.001). The tone of the statements in the journals was aspirational, whereas ethics codes used a normative language for defining authorship (\( \chi_{1}^{2} \) = 51.709, P < 0.001). Journals mostly required both research and writing contributions for authorship, while two-thirds of the ethics codes defined only research as a mandatory contribution. In conclusion, the lack of and variety of authorship definitions in journals and professional organizations across scientific disciplines may be confusing for the researchers and lead to poor authorship practices. All stakeholders in research need to collaborate on building the environment where ethical behaviour in authorship is a norm.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 55(4), 174–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M. J., & Monson, V. (2011). Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: historical reflections on current practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for the Study of Ethics in the Profession, I. I. O. T., USA. (2011). Codes of Ethics Online. Retrieved 15 April, 2012, from

  • Davidoff, F., DeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Hoey, J., Hojgaard, L., Horton, R., et al. (2001). Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet, 358(9285), 854–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (1991). Thinking like an engineer—the place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsevier. (2012) Products by subjects. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. E. J., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1995). Engineering ethics: concepts and cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, E. J. (1983). Responsibilities of coauthorship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 99(2), 256–257. (editorial).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Choemprayong, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Scholarly journal information-seeking and reading patterns of faculty at five US universities. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 126–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, J. (1991). The quest for a code of professional ethics: An intellectual and moral confusion. In D. G. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 130–136). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linman, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link. Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: an enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Milano: Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi. Retrieved 1 April, 2011, from

  • 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, 79(1), 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D. V., & Ariely, D. (2009). The researcher as a consumer of scientific publications: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits? Marketing Science, 28(3), 589–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcovitch, H. (2009). Committee on publication ethics flow charts on suspected publication misconduct. Maturitas, 62(3), 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine and Law, 26(3), 545–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheson, A. (2011). How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—and how they should be revised. PLoS Med, 8(8), e1001072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bilbiometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Quality judgments of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 332–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pignatelli, B., Maisonneuve, H., & Chapuis, F. (2005). Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 578–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. (1999). What professionals expect: Scientific professional organizations’ statements regarding authorship. In C. J. Manson, Geoscience Information Society (Eds.), Science editing & information management, Proceedings of the Second International AESE/CBE/EASE Joint Meeting, Sixth International Conference on Geoscience Information and Thirty-second Annual Meeting, Association of Earth Science Editors; 1998 Sep 10–22 Washinton DC (pp. 15–22). Alexandria, VA: Geoscience Information Society.

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, H. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2), 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), e18 (letter).

  • Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed, 9(3), 16.

  • Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA, 280(3), 216–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley-Blackwell. (2012a). All humanities journals. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from

  • Wiley-Blackwell. (2012b). All life sciences Journals. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from

Download references


This study was funded by a research grant from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The sponsor had no role in the study, including data collection and analysis, manuscript preparation or authorization for publication.

Conflict of interest

AM is the editor in chief of a general medical journal, member of COPE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Marušić.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bošnjak, L., Marušić, A. Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 93, 751–763 (2012).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Indexing databases
  • Journals
  • Publishers
  • Professional organizations
  • Authorship
  • Policy
  • Ethics codes