Skip to main content
Log in

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

Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term “health sciences” broadly to encompass research that is both “biomedical” (e.g., medical genetics, biochemistry, pharmacology, nursing) and which is more generally health focused (e.g., public health). While this definition will clearly include a wide range of disciplines—and thus authorship practices—we feel that the generalisation is nonetheless appropriate for our analysis.

  2. We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for bringing this very helpful example to our attention.

References

  • Abubakar, A. B., & Harande, Y. I. (2010). A snapshot of information-seeking behavior literature in health sciences: A bibliometric approach. Library Philosophy and Practice. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/bakeri-harande.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2011.

  • Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. The COPE Report. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/2003pdf12.pdf. Accessed 7 Feb 2011.

  • Bennett, D., & Taylor, D. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benos, D., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutierrez, J., Hennessy, K., Kosek, D., et al. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(2), 59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., et al. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a british medical faculty. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnholtz, J. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. (2005). Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 589(1), 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Public health service policies on research misconduct; final rule. 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93 (Vol. 70, pp. 28369–28400). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Wailoo, A. (2007). It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64(1), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P., & DeAngelis, C. (2002). Authorship for research groups. JAMA, 288(24), 3166–3168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganten, D., Semenza, G., & Nolte, C. (2009). Fostering trust. Journal of Molecular Medicine, 87(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, C., Battisti, W., Bridges, D., Bruce-Winkler, V., Conaty, J., Ellison, J., et al. (2009). Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: The GPP2 guidelines. British Medical Journal, 339, b4330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GUSTO. (1993). An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine, 329(10), 673–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. (2006). Korean stem cell scandal: Schatten: Pitt panel finds misbehavior but not misconduct. Science, 311(5763), 928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICMJE. (2009). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: Authorship and contributorship. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html. Accessed 6 July 2010.

  • Kunst, F., Ogasawara, N., Moszer, I., Albertini, A. M., Alloni, G., Azevedo, V., et al. (1997). The complete genome sequence of the gram-positive bacterium bacillus subtilis. Nature, 390(6657), 249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S., & Wells, F. (Eds.). (2001). Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K., Holdsworth, J., Anderson, M., & Campbell, E. (2008). Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, C., & Williams-Jones, B. (2009). Supervisor-student relations: Examining the spectrum of conflicts of interest in bioscience laboratories. Accountability in Research, 16(2), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić, M., Božikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gašpić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKneally, M. (2006). Put my name on that paper: Reflections on the ethics of authorship. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 131(3), 517–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. (2007). Authorship issues related to software tools. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 14(1), 132–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pignatelli, B., Maisonneuve, H., & Chapuis, F. (2005). Authorship ignorance: Views of researchers in french clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 578–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle and Nerve, 24(10), 1274–1277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. JAMA, 284(1), 89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2009). An author’s guide to publication ethics: A review of emerging standards in biomedical journals. Headache, 49(4), 578–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeman, J., & House, M. (2010). Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of giving credit. Accountability in Research, 17(3), 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer. (2010). Authorship guidelines. http://www.springer.com/authors?SGWID=0-111-6-888221-0. Accessed 15 Dec 2010.

  • Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 295(3), C567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsao, C. I., & Roberts, L. W. (2009). Authorship in scholarly manuscripts: Practical considerations for resident and early career physicians. Academic Psychiatry, 33(1), 76–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M., Rand, T., Resh, V., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS biology, 5(1), e18. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.

  • University of Pittsburg Investigative Board. (2006). Summary investigtive report on allegations of possible scientific misconduct on the part of Gerald P. Schatten, PH.D. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2009). Recognition, reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas, 62(2), 109–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 348–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welker, J. A., & McCue, J. D. (2007). Authorship versus “Credit” For participation in research: A case study of potential ethical dilemmas created by technical tools used by researchers and claims for authorship by their creators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 14(1), 16–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Zubin Master and the anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments on this manuscript. Smith was supported by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Masters Program) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and a J. A. DeSève Scholarship from the Université de Montréal. Williams-Jones was supported by grants from the Quebec Fonds de recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC) and the Ethics Office of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elise Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B. Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies. Sci Eng Ethics 18, 199–212 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5

Keywords

Navigation