Co-authorship

Authors are writers, but where collaboration is the norm, writing in itself does not always translate to inclusion as an author. Collecting or analyzing data, contributing to the design or simply being part of a project can also count as authorship. How this is perceived can vary between research fields.

Authorship means taking responsibility for one's own work. All authors should be able to support the main results presented in an article. Reputations can be discredited if people’s names appear on articles they have neither written nor reviewed and approved.  

The notion of authorship implies that everyone those who has contributed to a work should be credited. However, disputes about who should be included on an author list, and in what order, are not uncommon. For instance, it might occur that the leader of a project decides on the order of authors without the authors' consent. Another example is when the contributions of young researchers are not mentioned or sufficiently credited. If this is the case, we are dealing with a Questionable Research Practice. Young researchers do not always have much to say about the matter, and their contribution to the work may not be mentioned.

A study of articles in six prestigious medical journals found that every fourth article had at least one unjustified author, while every tenth article failed to include authors that should have been on the list (Wislar et al., 2011). Another study has shown that more than two-thirds of corresponding authors have disagreed with their co-authors regarding the contribution of each author (Ilakovac et al., 2007). There are many examples of questionable practices, like gift authorship, ghost authorship, guest authorship, and so on (Bülow & Helgesson, 2018, Tang, 2018 and Ranieri, 2019).

Most journals and scientific communities have established ethical guidelines that regulate co-authorship. These have been clarified in recent decades to prevent controversies and ethical misconduct.

Authorship is fundamental to our academic culture and implies integrity and responsibility for any published work. This notion is currently challenged with the development and accessibility of AI technology in research. AI tools and models, more specifically chatbots, cannot be held accountable in the way researchers can. These models are not committed to responsibility and are therefore not accepted as co-authors by most publishers. Cope (The Committee on Publication Ethics) states that “AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper.”  

Authorship norms differ across academic fields, and in Norway, guidelines for different fields differ slightly (see Guidelines | Forskningsetikk for all guidelines). While all of them refer to the Vancouver Recommendations , they are interpreted and weighted differently in different disciplines. Below, you will find an overview of some central subject-specific guidelines, each providing an expression of ethical standards and good research practice in their area.

Social sciences, humanities, law and theology

In the humanities, law and theology, it is still quite common to publish as a single author, implying that the same person has formulated the problem, collected and edited the data, and written the analysis. Traditionally, the same has been the case for social sciences, though it is increasingly common that a paper is written by two or more authors (Macfarlane et al., 2017).

As stated in NESH guideline, point 9, it is the act of writing that forms the basis for authorship. Therefore, a person contributing somehow to documentation, formulation of ideas for the analysis, who comments on the writing or provides technical help would normally not qualify as an author, unless the person has also contributed substantially to writing the work. 

Large collaborative projects do exist as well within humanities, law and theology, but unlike those in the medical and science subjects, it is not necessary to include all contributors on the author list. Contributors beyond the writer(s) are often mentioned in the acknowledgements.

As a rule, the criteria for authorship in humanities, law and theology are absolute when it comes to the requirement for writing. Large collaborative projects do exist within these disciplines as well, but unlike those in the medical and science subjects, it is not necessary to include all contributors on the byline. Contributors beyond the writer(s) are often mentioned in the acknowledgements. 

Within social sciences, authorship is most commonly based on writing, as in the humanities. However, there may be cases where authors can be included in the author list without having contributed to the text as such. In such instances, it might be more relevant to refer to medical and science concepts of co-authorship. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA) has guidelines for co-authorship similar to those in medicine. Here, authorship is not only attributed to the writers of a manuscript but also to anyone who has made a substantial contribution to a study.

Medicine: The ICMJE recommendations

A scientific publication in medicine will usually have multiple authors. What counts towards authorship is most often regulated by the ICMJE recommendations, formerly known as the Vancouver recommendations. Most journals, faculties and research institutions in the field of medicine support these authorship criteria.

According to ICMJE, authorship should be based on the following principles:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published;
• 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

  (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 2021)

All criteria must be fulfilled.

Science, mathematics and technology

In the natural sciences, mathematics and technology, there are researchers who research and publish by themselves, and there are projects that consist of several thousand members, such as those at CERN, where the list of authors can consist of a great number of people. And yet in these sciences, as in medicine, authorship is based on making “substantial intellectual contribution” to the work, be it problem formulation, study designing, data analysis or writing (for more details, please consult the Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology, which refer to the Vancouver recommendations).

As an example of an editorial policy in keeping with these principles, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) states that: “Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work.”

If you would like to learn more about this, you can find further information on co-authorship in social sciences, humanities, law and theology on the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees' website.

Even though guidelines governing co-authorship vary between disciplines and even research groups, there are some general principles that you should be aware of to avoid co-authorship disputes, and also to be able to resolve such disputes if they occur.

There are two types of co-authorship disagreement:

1. Disputes: These are usually about whether someone’s contribution is substantial enough to be included on the author list and can therefore be a question of interpretation. Disputes can most often be solved by negotiation with the other members of the author group.
2. Misconduct: These are cases where someone is proposing to include co-authors in a manner that does not conform with the guidelines of the journal or the general guidelines for authorship. These kinds of disputes can be more difficult to solve: if you decide not to act, this could make you involved in unethical conduct. On the other hand, acting might damage your future career. One solution could be to explain to your co-authors that the author list does not follow the guidelines of the journal, and that all authors could therefore be considered guilty of misconduct.

The following tips might help you prevent co-authorship disputes:

1. Start discussions at an early stage: Start discussing the author list and the order of authors at the planning stage of the research. Maintain this discussion throughout the process of writing and submitting the manuscript. Who should be considered as authors and their position on the author list may change in the course of a research project. The research group should strive for a common understanding of what work efforts merits authorship and who is responsible for writing, submitting and editing the work.
2. Address emotional issues: Group dynamics and interpersonal issues can impact any project. People investing time and efforts in a project often develop a strong feeling of ownership to it, though this may differ between project participants. It can often be useful to address problems directly by acknowledging disagreements, agreeing on principles and finding common ground. Sometimes it might be necessary to involve a neutral third party.
3. Sign a formal agreement: If possible, authorship should be decided before you start working on an article. A written agreement that states the roles of the different contributors is can prevent misunderstandings and clarify expectations. It will also be beneficial should disagreements arise. For templates, see below.
4. Be consistent: Criteria for co-authorship and order on the author list should be consistent within the research group, and with the norms of authorship within the community.
5. Know the guidelines: You can help encourage a good co-authorship culture by being aware of and communicating journal-specific guidelines, as well as field- specific guidelines.
6. Take responsibility: All authors should check the final version of a publication before submission, and withdrawing your name should be possible if you disagree with the interpretation of the results. If you have been put on the author list without your consent, or if you have been wrongly omitted, you should inform the other authors. In some instances, it is possible to contact the journal to ask for a correction after an article is published, but an editor is unlikely to add your name on the author list unless all authors agree.

In general, being transparent and clear about authorship and roles is vital for any research project, whether it is an individual or a collaborative effort. Journals are focusing on this issue and increasingly request statements clarifying who contributed what to the article or study. 

If your issue is difficult to resolve, you may consult CRediT, a community-owned taxonomy of 14 different contributor roles and how they are to be understood and applied. 

Some institutions have also developed templates for authorship agreements, which you may use and adapt if necessary (see Rasmussen et al., 2023). 

To prevent misunderstandings and disputes, it is advised to discuss, and to solve possible questions on co-authorship early in the process.

Here, you will find some examples of ethical dilemmas regarding co-authorship.

Scenario 1: THE DATA COLLECTOR

Early in her PhD studies, before she got properly started on her own PhD research project, Juanita was heavily involved in planning and collecting data for a study in her research group. After data was collected, she has not been involved further. The principal investigator of that study one day pops her head around the door and says “Juanita, I’m going to submit a manuscript on our study to The Very Prestigious Journal of Made-up Scenario Studies. You’re on the author list. Do you want to have a look before I send it?” Juanita has a look at the manuscript, which she approves of in every way, and happily accepts the authorship.
Should she have accepted it?

Scenario 2: THE HEAD OF THE LAB

Professor Topknotch is the head of a successful lab at a Norwegian university. She spends much of her time writing grant applications and supervising PhD candidates and post-docs and has very little time to do hands-on work. Apart from papers she co-authors with her supervisees, she is not involved in manuscript drafting or revision for papers headed up by the other senior researchers attached to her lab. Still, these researchers often include her on the author list.
Should they?

Scenario 3: HOW TO LIST AUTHORS

A PhD candidate has been working on an article in collaboration with her supervisor and other candidates that are part of the same research project. All the candidates and the supervisor have contributed to the writing, reviewing, and collecting of data, and they are all listed as co-authors on the by-line of the article. They have agreed to list the names alphabetically. The article is in the process of being submitted to a prestigious journal, when the leader of the research project (Professor A) contacts the supervisor. Professor A takes it for granted that he will be on the author list of the article. He argues that he is an experienced researcher in great demand in the field. He has previously published several articles in the journal, and also knows one of the editors, and putting him on the author list might therefore make it easier to get the article accepted in the journal. He adds that as the project he leads financed the work on the article, it is only reasonable that he should be on the author list. Professor A’s surname begins with an A, and therefore his name will appear first in the author list if included.
What should be the criteria for authorship? What is the fairest way to list authors? Is it important to be listed as first author? Why/why not? Should Professor A be included in the list of authors at all?

Scenario 4: THE HELPFUL CODE EXPERT

Werner is a PhD candidate with a helpful disposition. A fellow PhD candidate and friend belonging to a different research group was struggling with the best way to analyse some data, and Werner decided to help him. He worked on the problem for a couple of days, wrote some functions and other code, and drafted a short, but important paragraph for his friend’s manuscript, explaining the rationale for and technicalities of the analysis. After a favourable review from The Very Prestigious Journal of Made-up Scenario Studies, his friend has revised the manuscript, and asks Werner to have a final look at the whole thing, and make sure it’s all in order. At this point, his friend asks Werner if he wants to be on the author list. Should he be?

Scenario 5: AUTHORSHIP CREDITS

Maria is a PhD candidate at the prestigious National Humour Research Centre. She is conducting research on laughter under the direction of her supervisor, Professor Laughaway. After a preliminary analysis of the findings of her first study, Professor Laughaway suggests that the two of them prepare an article for submission to The Very Prestigious Journal of Made-up Scenario Studies. When Maria finishes the first draft, Professor Laughaway insists on two additions to the list of authors:
Professor Telltales, the scientific director of National Humour Research Centre, who had nothing to do with the study or the writing of the manuscript. Professor Laughaway tells Maria that listing the National Humour Research Centre director as one of the authors means that the paper would have a much better chance of being accepted by The Very Prestigious Journal of Made-up Scenario Studies.
Alexander, the research librarian who helped them conduct a literature search for the study.
Should professor Telltales and Alexander be on the author list? Should Professor Laughaway, as Maria’s supervisor be on the list?

• The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees on Co-authorship
• The Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills on co-authorship in international collaboration (in Norwegian only)
• Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT)

Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M. & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211

Bülow, W., & Helgesson, G. (2018). Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands. Research Ethics, 14(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118764305

Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE]. (2023). Authorship and AI tools. https://doi.org/10.24318/cCVRZBms

Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(1), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060687

International Center for Academic Integrity [ICAI] (2021). The fundamental values of academic integrity (3rd ed.). https://academicintegrity.org/images/pdfs/20019_ICAI-Fundamental-Values_R12.pdf, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Macfarlane, B., Devine, E., Drake, T., Gilbert, A., Robinson, M., & White, I. (2017). Co-authorship in Humanities and the Social Sciences: A global view. Taylor & Francis Group. http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/co-authorship-in-the-humanities-and-social-sciences/ 

Ranieri, V. (2019). Questionable authorship and the problem of dirty hands: Throwing missing authorship into the ring. In response to both Bulow and Helgesson, and Tang. Research Ethics, 15(3–4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119865728

Rasmussen, L. M., Banks, G., Demeter, E., Holladay-Sandidge, H. D., McBride, A., Hall-Hertel, K., & Tonidandel, S. (2023). Authorship agreements benefit researchers and research culture. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(12), 2044–2045. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01758-8

Tang, B. L. (2018). Responding to devious demands for co-authorship: A rejoinder to Bülow and Helgesson’s ‘dirty hands’ justification. Research Ethics, 14(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118798876

Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Deangelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343, Article d6128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128