Authorship Deserved, Not Earned: Research Ethics and Research Integrity Scenario

What is this about?

Although ICMJE clearly defines the role of authors through its sets of recommendations, authorship criteria are not always strictly followed. The recommendations get blurry and faded based on convenience, interpersonal conflicts, or become subjected to manipulation. Such is the case described in this scenario, where a young researcher has a dispute with his superior about a rightful co-authorship. A publication would propel his career, but it appears there is no room for discussion.

Why is this important?

This scenario warrants serious consideration on employed practices regarding ghost authorship. Several consequences might arise from this malpractice. Early-career scientists are deterred from gaining research visibility and acquiring writing skills. In the long run, it generates a vicious circle of bringing up new generation academics that might repeat the same mistakes if they were to become group leaders. Aside from long-term consequences on the health of academia, another problem arises – the lack of adequate bodies, in certain settings, that could help address and resolve the given problem. Institutions that haven't done so already, should widely act upon continuous education about good research practice on all levels, as well as implementing research integrity offices.

For whom is this important?

Academic institutionsAuthorsStudentsResearch Ethics CommitteesResearch integrity trainers

What are the best practices?

Following International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommendations

Other information

Virtues & Values

Good Practices & Misconduct