Authorship disputes: me first, me equally, me too, not me

That the collaborations of today’s team-structured, multidisciplinary, and international science yield substantial benefits for scientific advancement is widely acknowledged. Not surprisingly, however, the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its devilish head. Among its outcomes are complexities that can arise in determining authorship of journal articles and the order in which the authors’ names appear therein. Multiple factors can play a role in resolving those issues, not the least of which are the norms and practices of the disciplines, the journals, the institutions, and even the countries in which the authors reside. Indeed, determination of authorship and the order of authors in a journal article are not nearly as scientific as the research reported in the article. Many institutions, universities, and funding bodies provide guidelines on authorship. A common thread among them is the demonstration of substantial intellectual contribution to both the research and the manuscript. Authorship criteria vary among journals. Some give detailed guidelines; others provide no definitions in their instructions to authors. Many medical journals follow a shared definition developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje. org/ethical_1author.html). Although journals often take the position that determination of authorship must be handled directly by the authors and their institutions, this approach may not fit all circumstances. In some cases editors will stop consideration of a submitted manuscript until authors resolve disputes themselves. In other cases, editors might require authors and their institutions to resolve the situation before proceeding, or, after publication, determine that a correction or retraction of a published paper is needed. Some examples are given below. Publication of original research matters not only for documentation of scientific progress but also for an individual’s career advancement, reputation, and success in obtaining future grants and awards. It is important to understand that most researchers do not abuse these incentives as they determine authorship and author order. Nevertheless, some unfortunately recurring behaviors are inconsistent with ethical scientific practice and can jeopardize the external perception of science, impede its progress, and, regrettably, cause additional work for editors, publishers, reviewers, and others involved in scientific publication. Among the most common of these behaviors are ghost authorship, denial of authorship, and honorary/guest authorship.