Authorship

Introduction
P 1/14
The word “public” in English has a meaning of “common” or “shared”. The word “publication”
derived therefrom has a meaning of making it available to the public or to be shared. In this
respect, a street speech, distributing leaflets, writing an article, authoring a book or creating a
Web page could be a publication. The act of “publicizing” words or things, regardless of what
medium would be, it has social implications as well as ethical responsibilities.

In a social perspective, publication may create opportunities for social status, prestige, profit,
and power, on the other hand, ethical elements such as truthfulness, transparency and fairness
are also required. Unfortunately, there could be potential conflicts between these social and
ethical aspects of publication. For example, there is a possibility to obtain a status, or wealth by
publishing a report as a researcher, it is not difficult to imagine that there may be cases of where
truth, openness, fairness can be sacrificed at the time of publication.

Learning Objectives:
In the course of this module you will learn to:
 Clearly explain the three major research misconducts: fabrication, falsification and
plagiarism.
 Describe the criteria for claiming authorship of a research paper.

 Recognize the responsibilities of authors.

Authorship
Deception
P 2/14
Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are the three typical forms of research misconduct and
all of which involve some form of deception. This module will explain why certain actions are
considered as deception and why these actions are incorrect.

Generally a deception (deceptive acts) means to make or allow someone to believe in false facts
intentionally. To tell a lie - making false statements intentionally - is a form of deception. If
intentionally remaining silent from noticing that certain information is false and depriving the
opportunity for others to know about, this can be misconduct as well as lying.

Acts of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism are subject to punishment as misconduct when it

violates ethical codes. However, such misconduct is not limited and undermine scientific
research or affect research activities and society. In this module, the scope of misconduct will be
considered more broadly rather than covering limited violation rules and discuss problems of
research activities connected to misconduct that have major adverse effects on science.
Authorship
Responsibility for Human Intellectual Assets
P 3/14
A scientific literature is usually comprised hypotheses, experiments, observation results, theory,
descriptions of methods etc. Some scientific knowledge accumulated by human are correct and
some are incorrect. Although most incorrect knowledge are not intentional, it became incorrect
as the results. Knowledge becomes deeper and progresses slowly while correcting past errors
little by little. To discover the false can be considered as progress. This way, knowledge grows
slowly. Research is the process that is accumulating knowledge while distinguishing the errors
among the knowledge or views accumulated from the past.

Committing an act of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other forms of deception in

publication of research findings is a corruption or pollution of the scientific corpus. Although
there are various reasons why such deceptive acts are wrong, some reasons are as follows:
 For the sake of scientific development, it is commendable for researchers to discover a
predecessor’s error and correct them. This also means that it is the researcher’s obligation
to find and correct errors when it was discovered in previous research results.
 On the other hand, researchers who fraudulently and intentionally transmit data or
findings that they know to be false are simply misleading other researchers by wasting
their precious time, limited resources and budget.
 Future researchers may attempt to use the results of the research publication to obtain
some knowledge or advance their own research in the same perspective without knowing
that it contains a fraudulent act.
 Especially in the biomedical field, research findings are used for the development of
pharmaceutical products, treatment, etc. A false report of research findings might cause
or harm those who trust and rely on science or even jeopardize human life.

 Therefore, deception erodes the public trust in research communities.

Authorship
Authorship
P 4/14
In scientific journals published centuries ago, the authors’ names are hardly found in the articles.
At that time, these individuals might not have received the credit or fame for having made a
discovery first. Yet, the most intense disputes in the history of science have raised the questions
of who made the finding first and who is eligible for the most credit of these findings as time
goes by. Many social and economic rewards can be gained from authorship in an article has led
to social and economic rewards such as job security, promotion, tenure etc. As a result, being an
author could tempt researchers to act as unethical behaviors from potential benefits. In the
following, typical examples of unethical behaviors relating to authorship will be discussed.
Authorship
P 5/14
Authorship by Authority
On occasion, authority figures in universities or societies have used their status to become
authors on a publication without participating in the substantial work related to the publication’s
content. For example, laboratory directors might either implicitly demand or permit that their
own name to be placed on each document developed within their laboratory without any
substantial involvement in the work. The most common excuse of these types of deceptive
behavior are: “made a proposal for the grant that paid for the project”, “provided institutional
resources to support the project” or “filled some politically-important role related to the project”.
However, these excuses are extremely insufficient to be justified as co-authors. It is a deceptive
act to include a person who did not meet the criteria fully as the authorship which will be
discussed below.
Authorship
P 6/14
Gift Authorship
In this type of deception, an authorship credit attributed to especially prestigious or socially
influential research colleagues. If the beneficiaries of these courtesies did not substantially
contribute to the research, it is a deceptive act. It is deceptive to “reward” anyone, whether a
student or professor, with authorship unless that person has made a significant contribution to
the research.
Authorship
P 7/14
Political Authorship
This practice is related to both authorship by authority and gift authorship discussed above. The
idea behind it is that the important person will be angry, hurt or disappointed if they are not
included as co-authors even if they did not make any significant contribution to the relevant
work. Also another form of political authorship is to list the individual’s name who is known as
an authority in the relevant field as co-authors in order for their articles to be accepted. In many
cases, these individuals do not know that their names are listed as co-authors.
Authorship
P 8/14
Ghost Authorship
This form of deception is particularly problematic. Because the person named and awarded in
the authorship of a paper is not involved or a small contribution to the project and the person
who actually wrote the paper is not included in the authorship list. This deception is usually seen
when companies or organizations wish to gain credibility to a paper by recruiting and placing the
name of prominent researchers. A typical example is when a pharmaceutical company publishes
articles using the name of a physician. In some cases, these prominent researchers are given a
financial reward or honorarium even though they were hardly contributed to the paper.

The illegitimate practices relating to authorship listed in this module could corrupt the trust
placed in the scientific community. Some of these practices have become increasingly common
these days therefore journals have begun requiring all prospective authors to sign and declare on
the statements stating that they “have substantially contributed in the development of the
described project and have met the criteria for authorship”. In some cases, their specific
contributions to the work are also identified in the statements.

Recently, a major instance of research misconduct that the fabricated data is discovered in at
least 172 scientific papers published by a Japanese anesthesiologist and it became a hot topic.
The Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has investigated that the anesthesiologist used these
 publications as his achievements in the institutional performance evaluation, teaching job
application, professorship selection, applications of grants and awards etc.

Another problem has appeared in this case that there were many co-authors in these publications.
His former academic supervisors, senior colleagues and his research collaborators were listed as
co-authors. Although these co-authors were not committed fabrication, there was a clear case
that some researchers were named as co-authors in the positions as former academic supervisors
(authorship by authority) or agreed on a mutual promise to incorporate each other’s name as co-
authors in order to increase their achievements (gift authorship). Some co-authors did not realize
that their names were published in the authors of the publications, some people utilized the
publications as their own achievements and some others left it even though they noticed the use
of their names. In fact, a large part of the manuscripts were submitted without consent of the co-
authors. Many problems were also revealed on the aspect in terms of authorship in this case.
When research misconduct such as fabrication is discovered, co-authors will be held liable for
the misconduct as the authors of the publication. This case, was inevitably a good opportunity to
consider about the meaning of authorship in the articles and responsibilities related to the
authorship.

Basic rule:
“Do not accept the merit of authorship without fulfilling responsibilities to the paper.”
Authorship
ICMJE
P 9/14
The guidelines formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE is
the best known criteria for authorship in all of the sciences). The periodical publication
“Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” by ICMJE provides
authoritative standards for rules to apply to publications in academic journals including those
related to authorship. The latest version is available on ICMJE Website including a Japanese
language version.

The ICMJE statement reads as follows:

Authors should meet all the following four criteria in order for the authorship to be credited with
authorship:

1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or
interpretation of data for the work; AND
2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4) 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.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the
four criteria should be listed.

The ICMJE statement also provides as follows:

Acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group or general research assistance,
technical editing, language editing, and proofreading alone is not recognized as a contribution
that justifies authorship.

The ICMJE guidelines are not embraced by every discipline and may be open to debate.
However, it is important that these guidelines have been voluntarily developed and refined by
academic journal editors themselves, that is, the scholars who are part of the biomedical research
community. The guidelines are very significant because they have been stipulated autonomously
as internal rules to the professions to which they apply, and not as those being imposed
externally.

According to the ICMJE guidelines, even though the individuals who made an important
contribution to the research project, did not meet the criteria for authorship listed above should
be included in the “acknowledgments”. For example, although collecting data is an essential task
in order to establish scientific research and should be evaluated as a very important element, it
does not meet to qualify for authorship as the authoring criteria therefore it is not permitted to
list the name as an author.

A case that could occur: The graduate students who were engaged only in data collection and
believed that their name would be co-authored in the article but they were not listed in the actual
publication. How can we solve these problems? One of the potential solution is to have graduate
students to participate to work in the intellectual processes of the project such as drafting of the
article and approving the final manuscript. This approach would ensure that their authorship is
deserved as well as produce a more comprehensive education and training opportunity to foster
qualities and abilities to become responsible researchers in the future.
Authorship
Order of Authors
P 10/14
Determining the order of authors on a publication can be raised as conflict. The reason for many
disciplines is that the first author is considered the most important person and made the most
significant contribution to the project. Also the last author or the “corresponding author” may be
regarded as the most important person in some research areas as well.

However, this practice has been abused. Occasionally, senior researchers utilize the first author
position in order to achieve that favor trainee or postdoctoral fellows to advance their career.

In fact, a senior person, regardless of the actual contribution, often becomes the last author in the
list. Depending on the area, the authors are listed alphabetically and in that case, the most
important role could be the “corresponding author”, who is the most responsible person to
interact with the journal editor and the reading audience.

How should the order of authors be determined? The ICMJE guidelines states as follows:

“The group should jointly make decisions about authorship before submitting the manuscript for
publication. The corresponding author should be prepared to justify the presence and order of
these individuals.”
It is important that ICMJE does not present an explicit rule and required the group to discuss and
make an autonomous decision. In the previous guidelines set forth an order of contributions to
papers in accordance with the criteria for authorship as follows:
 The order of authors is determined based on the degree of intellectual contribution to the
research.
 When assessing the extent of a researcher’s intellectual contribution, most emphasis is
placed on Rule 1 of the four basic rules of authorship that we listed earlier on: that is, that
the researcher has made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the
work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data.
 In addition, the first author must also have made the most substantial contribution under
Rule 2: that is, to drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual
content.
 The remaining authors are listed according to the degree of their intellectual contribution,
from greatest to least.

These descriptions regarding the procedure for determining the order were severely criticized
and have already been deleted. However, they are still used as a guide in determining the order
of authors. In any case, it is important to discuss the order of authors along with the prospective
publication and the list of authors at an early stage of the research and to modify them as
necessary.
Authorship
Duplicate Publication and Self-plagiarism
P 11/14
There are other deceptive authorship and publication practices, one of which is to publish the
same or similar paper several times.

According to the ICMJE, duplicate publication (or redundant publication) is “publication of a

paper that overlaps substantially with one already published, without clear, visible reference to
the previous publication.” This type of practice is unethical because it creates an appearance that
the research finding has multiple weights and it corrupts the scientific corpus and deceptively
inflates individual productivity. Also other researchers may be frustrated, disappointed and feel
anger when they discover that there are the same contents already written in other papers after
spending their own time and effort. Furthermore, there is the possibility of infringement on the
copyright of the publisher for the scientific journal that is published.

The research results already published to another article to utilize as if it is a new finding is also
called “self-plagiarism”. Researchers are required to use citation to indicate to readers and
editors when the content such as data or conclusions are derived from previous results even if it
is the researcher’s own results (including a published paper, a poster presentation and conference
abstract).[2] As a similar case in the academic world is when a student writes a report for one
course and submits it in another course.

There are duplicate may be allowed in some cases and the ICMJE calls the case acceptable
‘secondary publication’. However, in this case also necessary to clarify that fact and to obtain
consent from the relevant journal editors of the first and the second publication. Needless to say,
it is necessary to clarify duplications in research achievement list.

Graduate students who are preparing or have already published their doctoral thesis need to be
aware when submitting a paper to an academic journal. When submitting (part of) a doctoral
thesis to an academic journal, graduate students should check the academic society’s
contribution rules or consult with a member of the editorial board to ensure that their submission
will not be considered as a duplicate. Also copyright is often transferred from the author to the
publisher when its published although, it depends on the academic journals. For this reason,
graduate students who wish to include a paper that has already been published in an academic
journal in (part of) their doctoral theses should confirm in advance whether students are allowed
to use it. (The same applies when publishing a paper in another type of publication such as in a
general-interest or academic book.)
Authorship
Fragmentation
P 12/14
Another way commonly used to inflate a research achievement list is to divide it in as many
articles as possible. The act of fragmenting research results (fragmentation) is also called the
search for the “least publishable unit” or LPU. It is also known as “salami publication” because
the results are sliced thinly as in a salami.

The rationale is extremely important when fragmenting research results into different
publications. If a researcher’s primary purpose is to secure his presence by impressing
colleagues, acquiring grants or a promotion, this strategy is a deceptive act and subject to
criticism.

However, there are circumstances in which separating research results into different publications
can be justified. For instance, an experiment or research program credibly addresses different
questions and these questions are of interest to different audiences in different research fields. In
such a case, the multiple publications in circulation could be appropriate although, it is still
required to disclose the connections of each results in print at the time of publication.

As well as ordering authors, a constitution and an appropriate publication strategy also should be
discussed in the research team at an early stage of the project.
Authorship
Rule of Acknowledgment
P 13/14
Ethical issues may be raised in acknowledgment within a publication and an oral presentation.
This is because the motivation behind that acknowledging a prominent researcher could be
possible to improve own reputation by the effect of the researcher’s authority or fame.

It is not always clear what kind of contribution warrants for an acknowledgment; this involves
judgment and critical thinking. Obtaining permission from the person who is acknowledged
would reduce deceptive factors. Although someone may think that it is difficult to refuse, this
can be contributed to the act of deception when a permission was given and in fact, it is not
appropriate to place the name on an acknowledgment.
Authorship
Conclusion
P 14/14
While fabrication, falsification and plagiarism are unambiguous misconduct, it is required to
carefully analyze and judge many other issues concerning authorship and publication.
Determining who should be listed as an author is one of those issues. The “responsible conduct
of research” and research ethics are not merely to obey guidelines or punishment. Critical
thinking is indispensable in order to proceed research activities fairly and faithfully.