Authorship Ethics: Issues and Suggested Guidelines for the Helping Professions

The authors review the literature and explore common ethical dilemmas related to publishing research. Varying standards are presented to assist professionals and students in their publication endeavors. Joint research collaboration in many graduate programs is encouraged and appears inevitable. Joint research activities may involve student–faculty collaboration or professional peer collaboration. Although many helping professions have ethics codes that address publication issues, there is no standard among them regarding the issue of authorship. Although it appears necessary to follow minimal codes of ethics regarding authorship, consideration of suggested guidelines and aspirational ethics may enhance the professional growth of mental health professionals and students in mental health programs.     

Authorship,Co‐Authorship,and Multiple Authorship

In this article, I use the example of the novel Micro, authored by Michael Crichton and Richard Preston, to tease out the relationships between an author and his work and with other authors of that work. The case presents a complication for a number of contemporary views on authorship and co‐authorship, which suggest that Crichton is either not an author of the novel or an author but not a co‐author—both, I suggest, are counterintuitive views. After working through the leading views on the topic, I present my own view of authorship, co‐authorship, and multiple authorship, centrally resting on issues of power, responsibility, and creation.     

Authorship Credit and Ethical Guidelines

This article examines the literature concerning problems in the assignment of authorship credits resulting from collaborative research within and between psychological, counseling, and medical professions. In addition to previously cited reasons for the proliferation of multiauthored articles, we argue that the determination of authorship is correlated with the ethical standards of the professional organization to which a researcher belongs. Thus, possible conflicts between collaborators can spring from two sources: (a) ambiguous language regarding authorship in an ethical code within a discipline and (b) lack of guidelines for working across disciplines, especially if individual collaborators have competing goals and expectations.     

Observations on Unacknowledged Authorship from Homer to Now

In this essay brief sketches of three historical cases of unacknowledged authorship are offered to remind readers that unacknowledged authorship has been and still may be viewed in different ways given different contexts and purposes. Reflecting on these cases and many others that come to mind, it seems that the contemporary scene concerning unacknowledged authorship does not indicate a huge deterioration of research or publishing integrity. Following the brief historical journey, overviews of two contemporary cases are presented to illustrate some difficulties that editors and publishers have today that those in earlier historic periods could not have had, as well as some suggested procedures for managing such difficulties.     

An Ethical Decision‐Making Model to Determine Authorship Credit in Published Faculty–Student Collaborations

Publishing research is imperative to both counselor educators and students in counseling programs. Furthermore, faculty–student publication collaborations can often be a mutually beneficial professional endeavor. However, determining order of authorship can be a complex ethical issue. The authors review prior research to illustrate the complexities of authorship and suggest a decision‐making model and considerations for preventing and resolving these ethical dilemmas. Implications for counselors include future research studies on complex issues regarding authorship of faculty–student collaborations, future incidence studies investigating occurrence of ethics violations, and incorporation of publication ethics into course work in counselor education programs.     

Authorship and sampling practice in selected biomechanics and sports science journals

In some biomedical sciences, changes in patterns of collaboration and authorship have complicated the assignment of credit and responsibility for research. It is unclear if this problem of "promiscuous coauthorship" or "hyperauthorship" (defined as six or more authors) is also apparent in the applied research disciplines within sport and exercise science. This study documented the authorship and sampling of patterns of original research reports in three applied biomechanics (Clinical Biomechanics, Journal of Applied Biomechanics, and Sports Biomechanics) and five similar subdisciplinary journals within sport and exercise science (International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Sciences, and Motor Control). Original research reports from the 2009 volumes of these biomechanics and sport and exercise journals were reviewed. Single authorship of papers was rare (2.6%) in these journals, with the mean number of authors ranging from 2.7 to 4.5. Sample sizes and the ratio of sample to authors varied widely, and these variables tended not to be associated with number of authors. Original research reports published in these journals in 2009 tended to be published by small teams of collaborators, so currently there may be few problems with promiscuous coauthorship in these subdisciplines of sport and exercise science.     

Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship.     

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.     

Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors

The authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are widely accepted in biomedical journals, but many studies in large and prestigious journals show that a considerable proportion of authors do not fulfill these criteria. We investigated authorship contributions in a small medical journal outside the scientific mainstream, to see if poor adherence to authorship criteria is common in biomedical journals. We analyzed statements on research contribution, as checked by the corresponding author, for individual authors of 114 research articles, representing 475 authors, submitted to the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) from 1999 to 2000. Only 40% of authors fulfilled the ICMJE authorship criteria. The authors listed first on the by-line were more likely to fulfill the authorship criteria than all other authors on the by-line. The percentage of authors fulfilling the ICMJE criteria of authorship decreased with the increase in the number of authors listed on the by-line. These results indicate that poor adherence to ICMJE authorship criteria is poor across biomedical journals, regardless of the size of the scientific community. Authorship and contributorship in biomedical journals, as well as editorial ethical responsibilities towards authorship criteria need critical redefinition and education of both editors and authors.     

Article Characteristics,Content, and Authorship in the Journal of Employment Counseling

This article is an analysis of general journal and article characteristics, content, and authorship for volumes 1 through 15 of the Journal of Employment Counseling, covering the years 1964 through 1978. It attempts to determine to what extent and in what ways the membership of the National Employment Counselors Association (NECA) is served by the Journal. The average length of the journal and its articles are noted as well as the number of authors and references per article. Each article is reviewed for content classification, authorship, and the author's institutional affiliation. The basic facts and overall publication trends are identified and discussed. It is noted that only a small proportion of published articles concerned Employment Service counseling techniques. The data in this article was originally prepared for the graduate course entitled “Psychology 411: Professional Problems in Psychology” at the University of Missouri-Columbia.     

Authorship Decision Making: An Empirical Investigation

This empirical study concerns the authorship credit decision-making processes and outcomes that occur among coauthors in cases of multiauthored publications. The 2002 American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code offers standards for determining authorship order; however, little is known about how these decisions are made in actual practice. Results from a survey of 109 randomly selected authors indicated that most authors were satisfied with the decision-making process and outcome with few disagreements. Participants reported cases of both undeserved authorship being given and omission of deserving contributors' names as coauthors. Some factors associated with authorship decisions included “sense of loyalty or obligation,” “publish or perish pressures,” and “power differentials.” Authors who used APA standards were significantly more satisfied with both the process and outcome of authorship credit decisions.     

Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges

The primary aim of this article is to identify ethical challenges relating to authorship in engineering fields. Professional organizations and journals do provide crucial guidance in this realm, but this cannot replace the need for frequent and diligent discussions in engineering research communities about what constitutes appropriate authorship practice. Engineering researchers should seek to identify and address issues such as who is entitled to be an author and whether publishing their research could potentially harm the public.     

Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine

Publication in the biomedical literature is important because it is the major pathway by which new concepts and discoveries are disseminated amongst scientists. In the last 30 years there has been a dramatic increase, not only in the volume of publications but in the number of authors per article as well. This paper summarizes the current literature on authorship and its proliferation in medicine. From the literature it becomes clear that for biomedical articles, the mean number of authors increased from 1.7 in 1960 to 3.1 in 1990, and there are indications that this trend is even greater in clinical medicine such that single authorship almost has disappeared. Formal guidelines of who should be considered an author have been set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. There are studies suggesting that not all authors on multiauthor papers fulfill these criteria. Inappropriate multiple authorship leads to dilution of authorship responsibility and unjustified citation in curriculum vitae. Recommendations regarding the prevention of inappropriate authorship are given in this paper. This paper is adapted from a lecture presented to a Symposium on Scientific Integrity, Warsaw, Poland, 23 November 1995. Dr. Drenth is a clinical investigator and resident in internal medicine.     

Policies and perspectives on authorship

Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may describe inappropriate practices; to a lesser extent, they provide guidance for determining authorship order. While policies on authorship may be helpful in some circumstances, they are not panaceas. Formal guidelines may not address serious power imbalances in working relationships and may be difficult to enforce in the face of particular departmental or institutional cultures. In order to develop more effective and useful guidelines, we should gain more knowledge about how students and faculty members perceive policies as well as their understanding of how policies will best benefit collaborators.     

Authorship: The Hidden Voices of Postgraduate TEFL Students in Iran

Although an author is defined as someone who has made substantial contributions to a research study, sometimes power relations in student-supervisor collaborations play a more determining role in attribution of authorship. This article reflects the ideas of eight Iranian postgraduate Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) students about authorship policies and practices at their universities. The interview data indicate that the participants were not involved in authorship decisions and authorship credits were given based on their supervisors’ positions and seniority rather than their contribution to students’ research. The participants also described unfair authorship experiences affecting their motivation, interest in academia, self-confidence, etc. It is recommended that faculty members and policy-makers in TEFL programs in Iran engage in ongoing open discussions about authorship policies and decision-making with students to avoid creating negative feelings and unpleasant experiences for students which might lead to a legacy of unfair authorship practices.     

Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles

We propose a rational method for addressing an important question—who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The modified ICMJE guidelines are then used as the basis to develop an approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author articles. The outcome of the approach is an authorship matrix, which can be used to answer several nagging questions related to authorship.     

Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices—in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one’s work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.     

Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors

Science and Engineering Ethics - Much has been said about the need for improving the current definitions of scientific authorship, but an aspect that is often overlooked is how to formulate and...