Authorship: Credit or Courtesy?

Authorship for academic publication in health research is driven by ethics and academic integrity, yet the authors get trapped in a credit/courtesy dilemma. In academia, a publication is a testimony of research productivity for both the researcher and the institution. Authorship is considered a core metric for attribution credit, career progression, and respect in the fraternity; for this reason, attribution of authorship should be handled carefully by Institutions and research teams. Yet, amid increasing pressure to publish and growing multidisciplinary collaborations, a critical question emerges: Is authorship awarded as genuine scholarly credit, or has it increasingly become a matter of academic courtesy? The answer lies at the heart of research integrity. In the field of health science, the authors are responsible for the work they publish. Each author must be ready to take responsibility for the validity of their research, accountability for the accuracy of data collected in the study, and contribute to solving the issues that may arise following the publishing. Thus, authorship requires acknowledging intellectual contribution in a published paper, but not seniority, designation, financial contribution, or organizational affiliation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has defined authorship in health sciences.1 An author must make substantial contributions to research, engage in writing or revising, approve the version of the manuscript submitted, and ensure the integrity of the work. Authorship, therefore, is not simply recognition – it is also accountability. Even with the above criteria, unethical behaviors of authorship persist. One unethical form of authorship is gift or honorary authorship, in which people are listed as authors despite making no significant contribution. In certain cases, senior faculty members or administrative or supervisory personnel may be mentioned based on their seniority or status, even if they do not contribute scientifically to the work. In ghost authorship, contributors who are vital in the research but not listed as authors are involved. These could be research assistants, statisticians, junior scientists, or professional writers.2 A new ethical issue in authorship is the link between scientific authorship and payment, especially in the context of open-access journal publications. There are specific situations where those who do not make a scientific contribution to the research project can pay for the Article Processing Charges (APC’s) in exchange for authorship. Such an exchange-based system of authorship assignment is unethical and clearly violates existing authorship guidelines. One needs to understand that scientific appreciation cannot be bargained or negotiated. It is crucial to recognize that authorship should always stem from genuine intellectual contribution. Thus, such tendencies undermine the credibility of scientific writing, and it is important to critically reconsider the current approach to authorship. In fact, most authorship problems emerge long before publication. Confusing expectations, misunderstanding about author order, and varying degrees of contribution are usually to blame. Fortunately, many of these conflicts can be prevented. Ethical authorship management must begin at the start of every research and document the agreed roles and responsibilities. Managing ethical authorship starts with creating an agreement at the very beginning of every research project, clearly outlining the expected contributions and their order, along with the criteria for inclusion in the work and dispute resolution mechanisms. These discussions should continue throughout the project because contributions often change over time. Contributor Roles Taxonomy (or CRediT) represents a promising solution that can increase transparency. By listing individual roles rather than simply ranking the authors by order, such as study design, data collection, analyses, manuscript preparation, supervision, and project administration, researchers can get a clear understanding of who has done what in the course of the project. It is also critical to keep in mind that authorship is based on contribution rather than any designation. In addition, providing administrative assistance, obtaining funds only, or collecting data without any intellectual contribution does not usually qualify for authorship either. These efforts must be appropriately recognized, but not necessarily constitute authorship.3 Another conflict aspect is related to the order of authorship, first and corresponding authorship. In general, the first author is supposed to be the person who has contributed the most (>40%) to the work. The corresponding author should be the one ready and able to carry long-term responsibility for the publication.4 Such positions should never be allotted on account of any seniority, academic positions, or even promotions within one’s career. Even though there is great importance given to the quantity of publications, the matter of author positions should never be compromised to fulfill institutional demands. Contribution must remain the primary basis for authorship decisions. Research institutions need to promote ethical behavior regarding authorship too. They can do this through educating researchers on publication ethics, setting clear policies, and providing ways to settle disputes fairly. Journals can help by requiring contributors to submit mandatory, detailed contribution statements. In essence, authorship is all about trust – readers assume the authors actually worked on the piece and are willing to stand behind it. Giving authors recognition without any contribution undermines the trust and, thus, the very nature of authorship. As health research is becoming collaborative, maintaining credibility in authorship has become more important than ever. Thereby, clear agreements, transparent discussions, and contribution-based inclusions ensure that scientific author credit is assigned fairly and responsibly. Ultimately, authorship must not be seen as a favor, a privilege of status, or an instrument of negotiation. Authorship should always reflect genuine contribution and accountability. In health sciences, given that the results affect people’s well-being directly, this becomes particularly important.