Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies

Abstract

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghostand 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.

Autorstvo/koautorstvo/lažno autorstvo

“…Krajnji rezultat svakog istraživanja je objavljeni naučni rad, a istraživač koji je potpisao naučno delo je autor. Autor naučne publikacije, kao i autor umetničkog dela, je u potpunosti odgovoran za celokupni sadržaj dela; njemu pripadaju i priznanja i kritika [7].…”

“…Tokom poslednjih nekoliko decenija prošlog veka, broj naučnih radova je rastao linearno, dok je broj autora tih članaka rastao eksponencijalno [10]. U oblasti biomedicinskih nauka ovo je naročito izraženo -velike multicentrične kliničke studije potpisuje po nekoliko desetina, pa i stotina koautora (tako je uveden termin "hyperauthorship" [7]. U tome nema ničega lošeg, ali iz te činjenice proizilazi veliki problem: sa brojem autora naučnog članka raste procenat lažnog -nezasluženog autorstva [7,11].…”

“…U oblasti biomedicinskih nauka ovo je naročito izraženo -velike multicentrične kliničke studije potpisuje po nekoliko desetina, pa i stotina koautora (tako je uveden termin "hyperauthorship" [7]. U tome nema ničega lošeg, ali iz te činjenice proizilazi veliki problem: sa brojem autora naučnog članka raste procenat lažnog -nezasluženog autorstva [7,11]. Ironičan izraz "Poliauthoritis giftosa" [12] odražava ovaj, relativno nov, fenomen u svetu nauke.…”

Editorial: Further Thoughts on Authorship: Gift Authorship

“…Smith concluded, ''… the events (referring to the fraudulent paper) should remind 'authors' that signing their names to something they can't defend is not in their best interest.'' More recently, the bioethicists Smith and Williams-Jones [10] stated, ''Granting authorship to everyone who enables research would be an unrealistic and extreme extension of the notion of authorship … such authorship practices would arguably undermine the value of being named on a scientific publication.'' Any author should have an adequate working knowledge of the content to publically defend the work.…”

“…This lack of consensus can, at a minimum, lead to conflict between researchers about appropriate authorship (eg, what norms are best, who should be named). But this situation may also encourage unethical publication practices, such as ghost-authorship (where the author of the paper is not named) or gift-authorship (where individuals who did not contribute are named as authors), practices that have received much attention in the public and scientific press in recent years, and which contribute to scepticism about the integrity of scientific research and publications…'' [10].…”