Definition of Scientific Misconduct Memorandum | Grant Authorship Guidelines
Principles of Data Management and Storage | Suggested Authorship Guidelines | UTMB's Research Misconduct and Fraud Policy

 

Suggested Authorship Guidelines

 

Prepared by the Scientific Integrity Committee: Elizabeth (Bets) Anderson, RN, DrPH, Salah Ayachi, PhD, PA-C, Eugene V. Boisaubin, MD, Gwendolyn V. Childs, PhD, Perry L. Fulcher, MD, Gregg S. Wilkinson, PhD, Phyllis Kritek, RN, PhD, FAAN, Satish Srivastava, PhD, Wayne Patterson, PhD, Walter J. Meyer, III, MD (Scientific Integrity Officer)

 

Introduction

Several issues related to authorship have been brought to the attention of the Scientific Integrity Committee.  Our intention is to promote dialogue among faculty about authorship issues and to develop guidelines for use by all UTMB employees involved in scholarly work.  This is an effort to provide assistance to faculty in making decisions on authorship issues.  These suggested guidelines are not meant to replace specific journal “Instructions to Authors,” but to address issues regarding fairness and good science, as well as to promote intellectual exchange and involvement between faculty and staff at our university.  Journal “Instructions to Authors” shall take precedence over these guidelines.

 

Different academic disciplines have different standards for authorship.  These guidelines are intended primarily for authors of manuscripts submitted to biomedical and health care journals.

 

The question of authorship often becomes a thorny issue if all parties involved have not decided in advance of the writing who, how, and in what order the authors will be recognized.  Ethical principles should guide such discussions and decisions.

 

Who is a Legitimate Author and Who Isn’t?

The literature of authorship specifies that one must meet basic requirements to be legitimately named as an author on a manuscript.  These requirements include participation in the research and writing of the manuscript, the assumption of public responsibility for the conclusions of the research, and willingness to produce the data on which the study is based, if so requested.  ‘“Public responsibility’ means that an author can defend his or her content of the article, including the data and other evidence and the conclusions based on them.”(Huth, EJ)  All authors share responsibility for the scientific integrity of the paper and may be held accountable for any subsequent charges of scientific misconduct.  Furthermore, many journals require all authors to sign a statement testifying to the validity of the research described and approving the submission of the paper and its contents, along with a letter of transmittal and a copyright transfer form.

 

The working definition of a “legitimate author” is a person who meets ALL of the following criteria:

1.   Has made a significant contribution to the conception and design, performance, or analysis and interpretation of the data;

2.   Has drafted or critically revised the article in part or full; and

3.   Has reviewed and given final approval to the entire version to be published.

 

As an author, they assume responsibility for:

1.   His or her contents in both the project and the article; and

2.   The ability to produce relevant data or documentation related to his or her contribution to the research.

 

Contributions to basic and clinical research can be recognized in a number of ways, i.e., authorship, acknowledgment, salary, letters of recognition, etc.  Authors need to negotiate beforehand about which form of recognition is most appropriate for the contributions of each person.  Persons who make intellectual contributions to studies, including data collectors, clinicians who provide access to patients, and those who interpret data, should be encouraged to become involved from the outset of the study, design, implementation, and reporting of the project. 

 

Persons who contribute to the manuscript project only through laboratory or departmental sponsorship, financial assistance, technical support, counsel, data collection, data analyses, or provision of access to patient data would not be named as authors.

 

Persons who contributed to the study and supported the authors in ways that do not qualify them for authorship, may be listed in an acknowledgment, after they give written permission to be named.  Based on the criterion described above for legitimate authorship, participants not meeting those criteria would not be listed as authors.

 

The practice of assigning the last author position to a department or division chair or to a senior member of a research team who has not made a substantive and significant contribution to the research is equivalent to the granting of honorary authorship; this practice is intellectually dishonest.

 

Order of Authorship

Unfortunately, despite the high academic value of publications and even the order of each article’s listed authors, “no proposal for more informative and standardized systems for ordering the names of authors has been universally accepted.”(Rennie D, et al)  Honest and diplomatic negotiations between collaborators, before any substantial research or writing is begun, is necessary to determine byline order if a journal does not specify an order for authorship.  These negotiations may have to be revisited several times during the project.  A common recommendation for order of authorship is to list the authors in declining order of their contribution to the work.

 

Conclusions

Authorship should be discussed and agreed upon at the outset of the research. Authors are responsible for determining order of authorship.  Journals may require authors to specify their contributions to the work and may publish this information.  Named authors will draft the paper, taking responsibility for the study as well as receiving credit, while the remaining contributors may be acknowledged in the paper as a group or individually for their contributions.

 

Department heads, institute directors, and other faculty and staff members should review the definitions of various types of intellectual dishonesty, including plagiarism and fraud, as well as UTMB policy on data management and retention. With increased awareness and institutional urging, one can begin to say “no” to both the offering and the accepting of honorary authorship.  Such a stance enhances the value and the integrity of authorship for all.

 

References cited are available at the Moody Medical Library.

 

References Cited

1.     International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:36-47.

2.     Huth EJ. Guidelines on authorship of medical papers. Ann Intern Med 1986;104:269-274.

3.     Lundberg GD, Glass RM. What does authorship mean in a peer-reviewed medical journal? JAMA 1996;276:75.

4.     Riesenberg D, Lundberg GD. The order of authorship: Who’s on first? (Editorial). JAMA 1990;264:857.

5.     Rennie D, Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin (Editorial). JAMA 1994;271:469.