Skip to main content
Log in

Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines’ criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the “editing service”, so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, “editing services” often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by “editing services” should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end “editing services”. In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bošnjak, L., & Marušić, A. (2012). Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics, 93(3), 751–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Science Editors. (2012). White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update (3rd revised edn.). Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA.

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dance, A. (2012). Authorship: Who’s on first? Nature, 489, 591–593. doi:10.1038/nj7417-591a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1996). Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship. The contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, L. D. (2011). Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(SEP), 196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, R. L., Ngo, L., Boiselle, P. M., & Bankier, A. A. (2011). Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: Assessment of frequency and associated factors. Radiology, 259(2), 479–486. doi:10.1148/radiol.11101500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enago (2012). Rejection/resubmission editing package. http://www.enago.com/resubmission-editing.htm. Accessed December 16, 2012.

  • Engelder, T. (2007). The coupling between devaluation of writing in scientific authorship and inflation of citation indices. GSA Today, 17(7), 44–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. J. (1993). Six authors in search of a citation: Villains or victims of the Vancouver convention? British Medical Journal, 306(6880), 765–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlen, J. A., Siminoff, L. A., Sereika, S. M., & Sutton, L. B. (1997). Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(4), 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. W. (1994). Survey of fulfilment of criteria of authorship in published medical research. British Medical Journal, 309, 1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hama, Y., & Kusano, S. (2001). Geographic variation in the number of authors on scientific abstracts. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 52, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis (1st ed.). Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, M. C., & Seeman, J. I. (2010). Credit and authorship practices: Educational and environmental influences. Accountability in Research, 17(5), 223–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. O., & Walker, R. D. (1996). Multiple authorship: Trends over 50 years in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57(1), 105–106.

    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 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2012). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Authorship and Contributorship. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html. Accessed December 18, 2012.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact. PLoS One, 3(7), art no. e2778.

  • Jacobs, A., & Wager, E. (2005). European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 21(2), 317–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2010). Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Medicine, 7(2), e1000230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lexchin, J. (2012). Those who have the gold make the evidence: How the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logdberg, L. (2011). Being the ghost in the machine: A medical ghostwriter’s personal view. PLoS Medicine, 8(8), e1001071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, G. A. (2010). A new criterion for allocating research funds: “Impact per dollar”. Current Science, 99(9), 1187–1188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan Science Communication. (2012). About the service. http://www.mscediting.com/service/index.html. Accessed December 12, 2012.

  • Manuscriptedit (2012a). Customized Services. http://www.manuscriptedit.com/customized-services. Accessed December 19, 2012.

  • Manuscriptedit (2012b). Literature review. http://www.manuscriptedit.com/literature. Accessed December 20, 2012.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health. (2007). Guidelines for the conduct of research in the intramural research program at NIH. http://sourcebook.od.nih.gov/ethic-conduct/Conduct%20Research%206-11-07.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2012.

  • Papatheodorou, S. I., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(6), 546–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Põder, E. (2010). Let’s correct that small mistake. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2593–2594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quencer, R. M. (1998). Creeping authorship: Where do we draw the line? American Journal of Neuroradiology, 19(3), 589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, L., & Muirhead-Allwood, S. K. (2010). How many orthopedic surgeons does it take to write a research article? 50 years of authorship proliferation in and internationalization of the orthopedic surgery literature. Orthopedics, 33(7), 478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regalado, A. (1995). Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science, 268(5207), 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 469–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeman, J. I., & House, M. C. (2010). Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in Research, 17(4), 176–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (1997). Authorship: Time for a paradigm shift? The authorship system is broken and may need a radical solution. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358. doi:10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Loon, A. J. (1997). Pseudo-authorship. Nature, 389(4), 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3), article number 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343(7835), d6128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Write Science Right. (2012). Editing Service Levels. http://www.writescienceright.com/editing_service_levels.html. Accessed December 15, 2012.

  • Zhao, S. X., & Ye, F. Y. (2011). H-Efficiency: Measuring input-output performance of research funds. Current Science, 101(1), 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank colleagues who were kind enough to discuss these issues with me. No proof-reading, copy-editing, substantive editing or co-writing services were used in the production of this manuscript. However, the help of the journal's reviewers, editors and copy-editors is acknowledged and appreciated. I thank the University of Tartu for giving me access to their online collections.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George A. Lozano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lozano, G.A. Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 363–377 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6

Keywords

Navigation