BIO403_Lecture5_authorship_2025.pdf

# Understanding authorship in scientific conduct Authorship in scientific publications is a critical aspect of research integrity, carrying significant academic, social, and financial implications for individuals and the broader scientific community [13](#page=13). ### 1.1 The importance of authorship Authorship signifies intellectual contribution to a published study. It is a primary mechanism for assigning credit and recognition for research efforts. Beyond academic recognition, authorship plays a role in career progression, influencing graduation, promotion, and employment opportunities. It can also be linked to securing research funding and maintaining employment. Furthermore, authorship contributes to an individual's reputation and recognition within their field [10](#page=10) [11](#page=11) [13](#page=13) [9](#page=9). ### 1.2 Trends in scientific authorship The landscape of scientific authorship has evolved, showing a clear trend towards an increasing number of authors per publication. Data indicates a steady rise in the average number of authors from before 1975 through to recent years. This trend suggests a growing emphasis on collaborative research models. For instance, some studies now report an average of over 1.014 authors and involve as many as 71 different affiliations [12](#page=12) [7](#page=7). ### 1.3 Who should be an author? The definition of an author is generally understood as an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions to a published study. This principle underscores the idea that authorship should be inclusive of all who meaningfully contribute to the research [13](#page=13) [8](#page=8). > **Tip:** Navigating the complexities of authorship can be challenging, often described as a "maze". It is essential to understand the criteria and expectations surrounding authorship to ensure fairness and integrity in scientific publishing [28](#page=28). --- # Criteria and contributions for authorship Authorship signifies substantial intellectual contributions to a published study and carries significant academic, social, and financial implications [13](#page=13). ### 2.1 Defining authorship An author is generally recognized as an individual who has made significant intellectual contributions to a published research study. These contributions are crucial for academic advancement, promotions, employment, research funding, and professional reputation [13](#page=13). ### 2.2 Core criteria for authorship Each author is expected to take public responsibility for the content of the published work. This responsibility encompasses several key components [14](#page=14): * **Conception or design, or analysis and interpretation of data, or both** [14](#page=14). * **Drafting the article or revising it for critically important intellectual content** [14](#page=14). * **Final approval of the version to be published** [14](#page=14). Participation solely in the collection of data does not, by itself, justify authorship [14](#page=14). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends authorship be based on four criteria [15](#page=15): * Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND [15](#page=15). * Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND [15](#page=15). * Final approval of the version to be published; AND [15](#page=15). * Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved [15](#page=15). ### 2.3 Contributions that may justify authorship Several types of contributions are generally considered sufficient to warrant authorship, provided they involve substantial intellectual input [17](#page=17): * **Design:** The formulation of the study's conceptual framework and methodology [17](#page=17). * **Supervision:** Providing oversight and guidance for the research project [17](#page=17). * **Provision of Resources:** Supplying essential materials, reagents, animals, or novel tools needed for the research [17](#page=17). * **Provision of Material:** Similar to resources, this includes supplying specific items necessary for the study [17](#page=17). * **Data Collection:** Actively gathering data, particularly if novel methods are employed or a specific role is played, such as in statistics or imaging [17](#page=17). * **Analysis and/or Interpretation:** Performing analyses, including statistical analyses, of study data. Basic data analysis that requires minimal intellectual input may not suffice [17](#page=17) [18](#page=18). * **Literature Search:** Conducting comprehensive searches for relevant existing literature [17](#page=17). * **Writing:** Drafting the manuscript, which can warrant first authorship [17](#page=17) [18](#page=18) [24](#page=24). * **Critical Review:** Providing substantial feedback and commentary on the manuscript [17](#page=17) [18](#page=18). An idea alone may justify authorship only if it is highly original and unique. Supervision and other intellectual contributions can also justify authorship, assuming active involvement [18](#page=18). ### 2.4 Contributions that may not justify authorship Certain contributions, while important, typically do not warrant authorship on their own and are more appropriately acknowledged in the manuscript: * **Technical help:** Providing routine technical assistance without significant intellectual input [17](#page=17). * **Financial and material support:** Providing funding or general laboratory supplies that do not constitute unique resources for the specific project [17](#page=17) [18](#page=18). * **Administrative support:** Offering general organizational or managerial assistance [17](#page=17). * **Editorial contributions:** Assisting with the editing of the manuscript without critical intellectual input [17](#page=17). Merely mentoring or training another author does not automatically confer authorship unless a substantive contribution to the study itself is made. Honorary authorship, for individuals like lab chiefs or celebrities who have not contributed intellectually, is generally discouraged [18](#page=18). ### 2.5 Author order and responsibilities The order of authors on a publication should reflect their relative overall contributions to the manuscript. This order should be a joint decision among all co-authors, and authors should be prepared to explain the rationale behind the listed order [23](#page=23). #### 2.5.1 The first author The first author is typically the individual who contributed most significantly to the work, including writing the initial draft of the manuscript. This role usually involves developing the hypothesis, defining precise methods, participating substantially in data analysis and interpretation, and writing the paper [24](#page=24). #### 2.5.2 The lead/corresponding author The lead or corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors review and approve the final version of the manuscript [25](#page=25). #### 2.5.3 Co-authors Co-authors should have made significant contributions to the planning and/or execution of the research, including the methods, procedures, and collection and analysis of data [25](#page=25). #### 2.5.4 The senior author The senior author typically formulated the original hypothesis or provided significant intellectual resources. This role also involves providing constructive criticism of the manuscript and accepting ultimate responsibility for the findings and the authorship. In some contexts, the "boss" who obtained funding may be listed last, even if they haven't read the paper [25](#page=25) [5](#page=5). ### 2.6 The CRediT system The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is a system designed to ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions, shifting the focus from pure authorship to contributorship. CRediT defines specific roles that individuals can fulfill in a research project, including [21](#page=21): * **Conceptualization:** Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims [21](#page=21). * **Methodology:** Development or design of methodology; creation of models [21](#page=21). * **Software:** Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components [21](#page=21). * **Validation:** Verification of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs [21](#page=21). * **Formal analysis:** Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data [21](#page=21). * **Investigation:** Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing experiments, or data/evidence collection [21](#page=21). * **Resources:** Provision of study materials, reagents, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools [21](#page=21). * **Data Curation:** Management activities to annotate, scrub, and maintain research data for initial and later reuse [21](#page=21). * **Writing - Draft:** Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft [21](#page=21). * **Review / Editing:** Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary, or revision [21](#page=21). * **Visualization:** Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation [21](#page=21). * **Supervision:** Oversight and leadership responsibility for research activity planning and execution, including mentorship [21](#page=21). * **Project administration:** Management and coordination responsibility for research activity planning and execution [21](#page=21). * **Funding acquisition:** Acquisition of financial support for the project leading to the publication [21](#page=21). An example of how CRediT roles can be assigned to authors for a specific publication is provided. For instance, "Conceptualization: JD, MM; Investigation: JD, FM, RF, JRL; Formal analysis: JD, FM, RF, KBS, JRL, MM; Visualization: JD, FM, MM; Resources: LR; Writing – Original draft: JD, JRL, MM; Review / Editing: JD, FM, RF, KBS, LR, JRL, MM; Funding acquisition: MM" [22](#page=22). --- # Ethical dilemmas and case studies in authorship This topic explores various scenarios and ethical challenges related to authorship, including guest and gift authorship, ghost authorship, and specific case studies that illustrate disputes over credit and responsibility. ### 3.1 Defining authorship and related ethical considerations Authorship in scientific publications signifies accountability and credit for research work. However, disputes and ethical dilemmas frequently arise concerning who qualifies for authorship and the appropriate order of names on a publication [27](#page=27). #### 3.1.1 Types of non-meritorious authorship * **Guest authors:** Individuals listed as authors who do not meet the accepted authorship criteria, often due to their seniority, reputation, or perceived influence [27](#page=27). * **Gift authors:** Individuals listed as authors without meeting authorship criteria, typically as a personal favor or in exchange for payment [27](#page=27). * **Ghost authors:** Individuals who meet authorship criteria but are not listed on the publication [27](#page=27). #### 3.1.2 Establishing authorship criteria Generally, authorship should be based on intellectual and conceptual contributions to the work being prepared for publication. Technical assistance, regardless of its complexity or extent, is typically not considered sufficient for authorship [35](#page=35). ### 3.2 Case studies illustrating authorship dilemmas The following case studies highlight common ethical challenges encountered in scientific authorship. #### 3.2.1 Case study 1: Help and technical contributions **Scenario:** Ayşe Küçük, a postdoc with expertise in gene cloning, trained a senior graduate student in these methods. The student, under Ayşe's supervision, generated a cDNA library and isolated a gene. The resulting manuscript listed the principal investigator and the student as authors, with Ayşe acknowledged but not credited as an author. Ayşe argued for authorship based on her training and supervision, while Prof. Ak maintained that her contribution was purely technical and did not warrant authorship, adhering to standards that prioritize intellectual contributions over technical assistance [35](#page=35). * **Analysis:** Ayşe has a case for authorship if her contribution involved significant intellectual input beyond mere technical instruction, such as designing the experiments or interpreting the results. If her role was solely to teach techniques and supervise their execution, Prof. Ak's stance aligns with common authorship guidelines [35](#page=35). #### 3.2.2 Case study 2: First authorship and CV representation **Scenario:** Dr. Birol Birinci, a PhD student, had several publications, two of which listed him as a co-first author, with the order decided by a coin toss. On his CV, Birol altered the order to place his name first for these papers to emphasize his contribution when applying for faculty positions. He worried his publication record appeared weak and lacked senior-authored papers [36](#page=36). * **Advice:** Misrepresenting author order on a CV is unethical and can damage credibility. Birol should accurately reflect the original author order and clearly state the nature of his co-first authorship. He could include a footnote or a statement explaining the circumstances of shared first authorship [36](#page=36). #### 3.2.3 Case study 3: Authorship credit and university affiliation **Scenario:** Prof. Fatih Küçük moved from A University to B University and found a completed manuscript in his former office, listing B University as his address. A published paper identical to this manuscript appeared in *Cell*, crediting B University and thanking a technician from A University in the acknowledgments. Prof. Ak suspected Fatih had published work conducted at A University under his new affiliation to appear more productive [37](#page=37). * **Advice for Department Chair:** The department chair should investigate the allegations of scientific misconduct thoroughly. This may involve reviewing Fatih's expense reports, lab notebooks, and communication logs from both universities. The department chair should consult institutional policies on research integrity and potentially involve a research integrity officer. Deliberately falsifying information regarding the location or timeline of research constitutes serious misconduct [37](#page=37). #### 3.2.4 Case study 4: Responsibility for image manipulation **Scenario:** A published paper co-authored by PhD student Mustafa, his mentor Prof. Ak, and another student faced allegations on a blog of manipulated Western blot images, with claims of "erased" lanes and "cut-and-pasted" bands. The authors admitted to editing the image for clarity but denied deceptive intent or altering the data [38](#page=38). * **Analysis of Strategies:** * **Defending on the blog:** While defending their position is an option, it lacks the formal rigor of a peer review process and could escalate the conflict. * **Notifying the editor:** Informing the journal editor is a crucial step, as it allows the journal to initiate its own review and potentially issue a correction or retraction. * **Doing nothing:** Ignoring public allegations can be interpreted as an admission of guilt or a lack of accountability. * **Turning over materials to integrity officer:** This is a responsible and proactive approach that allows for an impartial investigation into the allegations [38](#page=38). * **Advice for Prof. Ak:** Prof. Ak should immediately notify the journal editor and the institutional research integrity officer. They should transparently provide all raw data and image preparation files for scrutiny. Even if they believe no wrongdoing occurred, cooperating fully with an investigation is essential for maintaining scientific integrity [38](#page=38). #### 3.2.5 Case study 5: Neglect and submission delays **Scenario:** Metin Miskin, a recent PhD graduate, left academia for a career as a skydiving pilot. A manuscript based on his thesis remained a preliminary draft. His former advisor, Prof. Ak, revised the manuscript, but Metin did not provide comments or consent to submit. Subsequently, similar results were published by another lab. Prof. Ak and a postdoc prepared a new manuscript with Metin as first author, but Metin remained unresponsive to submission agreements. A friend indicated Metin blamed Prof. Ak for delays and was intentionally hindering the publication [39](#page=39). * **Publishing the manuscript:** Prof. Ak cannot ethically submit or publish the manuscript if Metin, as a co-author, has not provided consent to submit. This would violate authorship agreements and potentially result in the journal retracting the paper. * **Authorship:** Metin should remain the first author as the work is based on his thesis. The postdoc would be an additional coauthor. * **Acknowledgments:** If Metin's data or previous work is essential for the new manuscript, it might be appropriate to include an acknowledgment for his original contribution, especially if he is not listed as an author on the revised manuscript due to non-responsiveness. However, given his current stance and stated intentions, this is complex [39](#page=39). #### 3.2.6 Case study 6: Authorship based on a suggested experiment **Scenario:** Prof. Hayvan asked Mustafa Can to perform an experiment before his thesis defense. Although the experiment's direct results were not new, a positive control led to a significant discovery about a ligand metabolite. Mustafa and Prof. Ak wrote a manuscript, but Prof. Hayvan demanded authorship, arguing his insistence on the experiment was a "significant idea" qualifying for authorship and expressed dissatisfaction with not being acknowledged [40](#page=40). * **Mentor's Response:** As Mustafa's mentor, the response should be to carefully evaluate Prof. Hayvan's claim against established authorship criteria. While suggesting an experiment is a contribution, it does not automatically qualify for authorship unless it involves significant intellectual input beyond merely requesting an action. * **Analysis and Actions:** The situation requires a balanced assessment. If Prof. Hayvan's suggestion was a mere procedural request with no intellectual contribution to the discovery itself, authorship is not warranted. However, if his suggestion was a novel idea that directly led to the experimental design and subsequent discovery, a co-authorship or at least an acknowledgment might be considered. In this case, the discovery stemmed from a positive control within the requested experiment, suggesting the "idea" was more about execution and observation of unexpected results, rather than a conceptual breakthrough proposed by Hayvan. * **Why:** Authorship should reflect substantive intellectual contributions. While Prof. Hayvan initiated the experiment, the significant discovery emerged from an unexpected result and Mustafa's subsequent interpretation and rigorous data collection. The mentor should discuss the situation with both Mustafa and Prof. Hayvan, explaining the authorship criteria and proposing an appropriate course of action, which could range from acknowledgment to declining authorship based on the depth of intellectual contribution [40](#page=40). #### 3.2.7 Case study 7: Intellectual origin versus flawed execution **Scenario:** PhD student Murat Orman hypothesized a mechanism for a knockout mouse phenotype and tested it, producing reproducible data. However, upon leaving the lab, another student, Ayşe, could not replicate Murat's findings and discovered his data were flawed due to improper assay conduct. Ayşe's subsequent experiments provided an alternative explanation for the phenotype. Murat requested coauthorship based on his initial hypothesis, despite the flawed execution of his work [41](#page=41). * **Prof. Ak's query:** Prof. Ak seeks advice on whether Murat has a case for authorship. * **Advice:** Murat does not have a strong case for authorship. While his initial hypothesis was an intellectual contribution, the actual experimental work was flawed and did not lead to valid findings. Authorship is generally based on substantial contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the work being published. Murat's work did not meet these criteria due to its irreproducibility and fundamental errors in execution. Ayşe's diligent work in correcting the errors and conducting rigorous experiments forms the basis of the publication [41](#page=41). * **Why:** The principle is that authorship credits those who have contributed meaningfully and accurately to the research. Murat's flawed execution invalidated his experimental results, and his hypothesis, while potentially a starting point, did not lead to the established findings without significant correction and further research by others [41](#page=41). #### 3.2.8 Case study 8: Coercive citation and journal policies **Scenario:** Jane Doe, an assistant professor, was invited to serve on the peer review board of an online journal. The publisher encouraged her to submit her own papers and cite relevant publications from the journal to increase its impact factor. A board member confirmed this practice, calling it "coercive citation," and mentioned pressure from the editor-in-chief to cite previous journal articles [42](#page=42). * **Advice and Take:** Jane should decline the invitation to serve on this journal's peer review board. The practice of coercive citation is highly unethical and undermines the integrity of the peer review process and scientific literature. Such practices artificially inflate a journal's impact factor and can mislead researchers and funding agencies. Accepting this position would compromise her own ethical standing and scientific reputation. * **Why:** Scientific integrity demands honest representation of research. Coercive citation manipulates citation metrics for personal or institutional gain, which is a form of academic dishonesty. Jane's professional development should be built on genuine contributions and ethical practices, not on engagement with a journal that promotes such dubious methods [42](#page=42). --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |---|---| | Authorship | The act or status of being credited as an author of a published work, carrying significant academic, social, and financial implications for individuals involved in research. | | First author | The author who typically made the most substantial intellectual contributions to the work, often including drafting the initial manuscript and playing a lead role in the research design and execution. | | Senior author | The author, usually the principal investigator or lab head, who often conceives the original hypothesis, provides intellectual resources, supervises the research, and takes ultimate responsibility for the findings and publication. | | Middle authors | Authors listed between the first and last authors, whose contributions vary but are generally less significant than those of the first or senior authors; often includes students and technical staff. | | Guest author | An individual listed as an author who does not meet the standard authorship criteria but is included due to their seniority, reputation, or perceived influence, which is generally considered unethical. | | Gift author | An individual listed as an author who has not met the authorship criteria but is included as a personal favor or in exchange for payment, which is a form of authorship misconduct. | | Ghost author | An individual who meets the authorship criteria and has made substantial intellectual contributions but is not listed as an author on the publication, often to omit them or for undisclosed reasons. | | ICMJE criteria | A set of four recommended criteria by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors that define authorship, requiring substantial contributions to conception/design or data acquisition/analysis/interpretation, drafting/revising critically, final approval, and accountability for all aspects of the work. | | CRediT system | Contributor Roles Taxonomy, a system designed to provide standardized descriptions of the contributions of each author to a research publication, moving towards contributorship rather than solely authorship. | | Conceptualization | The process of originating or evolving the overarching research goals, ideas, and aims that guide a study. | | Investigation | The active process of conducting research, which specifically involves performing experiments, gathering data, or collecting evidence relevant to the study's objectives. | | Formal analysis | The application of quantitative methods, such as statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques, to analyze and synthesize the data collected during a research study. | | Data curation | The management activities required to annotate, clean, and maintain research data, including software code, to ensure its usability for initial research purposes and for future reuse. | | Supervision | The role of overseeing and providing leadership for the planning and execution of research activities, which often includes mentorship for researchers involved in the project. | | Funding acquisition | The process of securing the financial resources necessary to support and conduct a research project leading to a publication. | | Scientific misconduct | Intentional deviation from accepted practices in research, such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, which can undermine the integrity of scientific research. | | Coercive citation | The practice of pressuring authors to cite previous publications from a specific journal to artificially inflate its impact factor, which is an unethical practice. |