Abstract
Even though the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has developed explicit recommendations regarding authorship, the correct declaration of the contribution of each author is not easily accomplished for a variety of reasons. Therefore, authorship disputes have become an increasing problem within the research community, academic institutions, and funding organisms. This chapter will briefly summarize current criteria for authorship, including the importance of its correct declaration; will identify concepts such as “honorary authorship” and “ghost-writing” as well as some emergent subjects, such as patients as co-authors and suboptimal female representation in the author’s list. Additionally, we will discuss some cases of authorship disputes and provide ways of preventing and resolve them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Society for Cell Biology. (2012). San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/
Bell, M. L., & Fong, K. C. (2021). Gender differences in first and corresponding authorship in public health research submissions during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Public Health, 111(1), 159–163.
Cobey, K. D., Monfaredi, Z., Poole, E., Proulx, L., Fergusson, D., & Moher, D. (2021). Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: A cross-sectional survey. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(1), 39.
Committee on Publications Ethics. (2019). Promoting integrity in research and its publication. COPE discussion document: Authorship. publicationethics.org
Condron, M. E., Kibbe, M. R., Azarow, K. S., & Martin, M. J. (2021). Courtesy authorship practices among first and senior authors: Evaluation of motivations, gender bias, and inequities. Annals of Surgery.
COPE Council. (2019). COPE Flowcharts and infographics. How to recognise potential authorship problems.
Fathy, C. A., Cherkas, E., Shields, C. N., Syed, Z. A., Haller, J. A., Zhang, Q. E., Sharpe, J., & Garg Shukla, A. (2021). Female editorial authorship trends in high-impact ophthalmology journals. JAMA Ophthalmol.
Faulkes, Z. (2018). Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3, 12.
Fleming, N. (2021). The authorship rows that sour scientific collaborations. Nature, 594(7863), 459–462.
Gattrell, W. T., Hopewell, S., Young, K., Farrow, P., White, R., Wager, E., & Winchester, C. C. (2016). Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 6(2), e010329.
Grant, J. (2021). Academic incentives and research impact: Developing reward and recognition systems to better People’s lives. (AcademyHealth, Issue). https://academyhealth.org/sites/default/files/publication/%5Bfield_date%3Acustom%3AY%5D-%5Bfield_date%3Acustom%3Am%5D/academicincentivesresearchimpact_feb2021.pdf
Hottenrott, H., & Lawson, C. (2017). A first look at multiple institutional affiliations: A study of authors in Germany, Japan and the UK. Scientometrics, 111(1), 285–295.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Available at http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
Jabbarpour, Y., Wilkinson, E., Coffman, M., & Mieses, A. (2020). Has female authorship in family medicine research evolved over time? Annals of Family Medicine, 18(6), 496–502.
James, M. J., & Cleland, L. G. (2004). Applying a research ethics committee approach to a medical practice controversy: The case of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(2), 182–184.
Kellner, A. W. A. (2021). Comments on convenience authorship. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 93(3), e2021933.
Macfarlane, G. J. (2021). What to do about … Authorship? British Journal of Pain, 15(3), 249–250.
Madden, C., O’Malley, R., O’Connor, P., O’Dowd, E., Byrne, D., & Lydon, S. (2021). Gender in authorship and editorship in medical education journals: A bibliometric review. Medical Education, 55(6), 678–688.
Madiba, T. E., & Dhai, A. (2006). Addressing authorship disputes. South African Medical Journal, 96(1), 49–50. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16440111
Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., & Jeroncic, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One, 6(9), e23477.
Marusic, A., Hren, D., Mansi, B., Lineberry, N., Bhattacharya, A., Garrity, M., Clark, J., Gesell, T., Glasser, S., Gonzalez, J., Hustad, C., Lannon, M. M., Mooney, L. A., & Pena, T. (2014). Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications. BMC Medicine, 12, 197.
Nielsen, M. W., Andersen, J. P., Schiebinger, L., & Schneider, J. W. (2017). One and a half million medical papers reveal a link between author gender and attention to gender and sex analysis. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 791–796.
Regehr, G. (2021). When names are on the line: Negotiating authorship with your team. Perspect Medical Education, 10(4), 197–199.
Richards, D. P., Birnie, K. A., Eubanks, K., Lane, T., Linkiewich, D., Singer, L., Stinson, J. N., & Begley, K. N. (2020). Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6, 38.
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812.
Schumacher, C., Eliades, T., & Koletsi, D. (2021). Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade. European Journal of Orthodontics.
Sekara, V., Deville, P., Ahnert, S. E., Barabasi, A. L., Sinatra, R., & Lehmann, S. (2018). The chaperone effect in scientific publishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(50), 12603–12607.
Sismondo, S., & Doucet, M. (2010). Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication. Bioethics, 24(6), 273–283.
Stocks, A., Simcoe, D., Toroser, D., & DeTora, L. (2018). Substantial contribution and accountability: Best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 34(6), 1163–1168.
van der Wal, J. E. M., Thorogood, R., & Horrocks, N. P. C. (2021). Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers. Proceedings of the Biological Sciences, 288(1958), 20210219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Salas, S.P. (2023). Ethics of Authorship. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J.A. (eds) Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume II. Collaborative Bioethics, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29455-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29455-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29454-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29455-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)