1. publicationethics.org
Towards better
research authorship
COPE: Promoting integrity in research and its publication
Chris Graf, Co-Chair, COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4699-4333.
Disclosure: CG volunteers for COPE, Committee on Publication
Ethics. CG works for Wiley.
2. publicationethics.org
Agenda
Why does good authorship practice matter? Done!
Introduction: COPE and COPE’s core practices
What symptoms can identify poor practice?
How do we manage problems when they arise?
Cases!
http://www.ombudsman-fuer-die-wissenschaft.de/fileadmin/Ombudsman/Dokumente/Downloads/Programm_201
4. publicationethics.org
12,000+ members, 100+ countries
• As an organization, COPE’s role is to assist editors of scholarly journals and
publisher/owners in their endeavour to preserve and promote the integrity of
the scholarly record through policies and practices that reflect the current best
principles of transparency as well as integrity.
• COPE is a membership organization. Our members are primarily editors of
journals and publishers although we are currently exploring expanding our
membership. Part of this potential expansion is being explored with a pilot project
with five universities around the world.
• COPE operates, manages and governs the organization with a small group of
paid employees and a large group of very active volunteers who serve on the
trustee board and council.
5. publicationethics.org
30+ Council members
Lead all the work of COPE,
Subcommittees, Working groups
12,000+ members
10+ Trustees
Members of Council with
legal responsibilities for COPE
Vote
Vote
Appoint
7. publicationethics.org
COPE’s Core Practices
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
COPE assists editors of scholarly journals and publishers - as well as other
parties, such as institutions - in their work to preserve and promote the
integrity of the scholarly record through policies and practices. COPE
describes these in 10 “Core Practices”. COPE's Core Practices should be
considered alongside specific national and international codes of conduct for
research.
8. publicationethics.org
‘‘
Journals and publishers should have robust and well-
described, publicly documented practices in all the
following areas
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
https://publicationethics.org/files/editable-bean/COPE_Core_Practices_0.pdf
11. publicationethics.org
Prof Mark Israel, AHRECS, Perth, WA, Australia
http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Mark_Israel_presentat
ion_ENGLISH.pdf
‘‘If you asked a child what it means
to be an author, they’d say it was
simple. So what’s our problem?
13. publicationethics.org
• I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My
supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t
included me as an author
• My department head insists on being included as an author on
any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But
he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?
• In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the
relative contribution of each?
What constitutes authorship? Discuss
14. publicationethics.org
• I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My
supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t
included me as an author
• My department head insists on being included as an author on
any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But
he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?
• In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the
relative contribution of each?
What constitutes authorship? Discuss
15. publicationethics.org
• I am a junior researcher and did a lot of the basic work. My
supervisor/department head wrote up the work and hasn’t
included me as an author
• My department head insists on being included as an author on
any research paper that comes out of his/her department. But
he/she only obtained the grant money. Is this fair?
• In what order should we list the authors to demonstrate the
relative contribution of each?
What constitutes authorship? Discuss
22. publicationethics.org
• Author A & Author B listed on paper submitted to Journal
• Author A disagrees with submission during peer review
• Author B admits to Journal Editor he had failed to gain contact
with Author A prior to submission
• Editor instructs peer reviewers to halt pending contact. Author A
refusing to respond to contact attempts.
Case 1: Author disagreement
blocks submission (15-02)
23. publicationethics.org
Case 1 Feedback
• Forum advised contacting the institution directly. COPE advises
that author disputes are resolved by the institution
• Editor to contact Author A directly. Publication not to go ahead in
absence of Author A’s agreement – legal issues
• If Editor really wants to publish paper, needs a clear statement on
published paper
• Follow up: Editor contacted Author A and paper was submitted
24. publicationethics.org
Case 2: Requesting authorship after
publication (Case 15-17)
• Dr H contacts journal as not listed as author on published paper,
despite contributing samples from his database
• Author suggests listing Dr H in simple acknowledgement list, not
as author as was not involved in study design. Dr H not satisfied.
• As his contribution did not fulfil ICMJE criteria (journal policy), co-
authors offered to list Dr H in acknowledgments else would be gift
authorship
• Dr H still dissatisfied
25. publicationethics.org
Case 2 Feedback
• Contributorship: list contributions of each author to clarify
contributors for authorship
• Forum advised institution to address issue
• Editor to review CRediT (Contributor roles taxonomy), CSRAI
activity to understand and communicate contributor roles
• ICMJE guidelines state acknowledgements need written
permission from person being acknowledged
• Follow up: Publication of correction listing Dr H in an
acknowledgement (not as an author)
26. publicationethics.org
Case 3: Inability to contact an author to
obtain permission to publish (15-11)
• Author A, overseas PhD student returned home to a country with
considerable political and civil unrest
• Authors B,C,D,E very keen to publish paper but unable to contact
Author A whom they want to put as first author, therefore unable
to gain permission to publish
• Editor suggests publishing with full statement about author’s
contribution to article and fact that been unable to contact
Author A
27. publicationethics.org
Case 3 Feedback
• Forum agreed with Editor’s suggested course of action. Similar
issue arises with deceased authors
• Forum suggested approaching senior member of institution to
guarantee work carried out as described/ vouch for conflicts of
interests author might have
• Forum discussed whether Author A qualified for authorship as did
not contribute to writing of article. As part of PhD, article based
on author’s write-up therefore fulfils criteria for authorship
• Follow-up: Journal’s internal publications ethics committee
supportive of publishing. Statement placed at end of article.
29. Discussion document on best practice for issues around theses
publishing: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/best_practice_for_issues
_around_theses_publishing%20%281%29.pdf
COPE webinar on on common authorship issues faced by COPE
members: https://publicationethics.org/resources/seminars/copes-first-
webinar-information-shared-discussion-and-practical-advice-common
All flowcharts: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of
%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf
elearning module on Authorship (Members only):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/e-learning
Promoting awareness of good authorship practice - Siu-wai Leung,
University of Macau, Macau, China at the 1st COPE China seminar, March
2017
https://publicationethics.org/resources/seminars/promoting-awareness-
good-authorship-practice-siu-wai-leung-university-macau-macau
“Good authorship practice looks simple,” said Leung. He stressed that it “looks simple” to people who are not experienced in research publishing, but the closer you look the more complex it becomes. Leung emphasized the conjunctive “and” that lies between each of the four ICMJE criteria which are used by many leading medical journals to define research authorship: research authorship requires design/data collection AND writing/revising AND approval/signoff AND accountability [2].
Israel explained how research authorship is used for credit, career advancement, and research assessment
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
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.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
Problems commonly stem from (i) individuals who claim that they deserve to be authors but have been omitted; (ii) individuals who have been included as authors but without their consent; (iii) individuals who agree to be authors but who back away from responsibility if something goes wrong – such as if an issue with the integrity of the paper comes to light; and (iv) confusion over multiple authorship.
The junior researcher would not qualify as an author according to the ICMJE criteria because he/she had no involvement in the writing of the paper nor final approval of the version to be published. However, the junior researcher may have had no opportunity to do so. He/she should have been offered this opportunity and at least included in the acknowledgment section if the opportunity was declined. In this situation, editors should contact the institution concerned and seek an investigation before considering any changes to authorship – it is not for the editor to adjudicate
This type of “guest” authorship still seems to be the accepted norm in some institutions. According to most definitions, someone who merely obtained grant money and provided top-level supervision would qualify for acknowledgment but not authorship. Having a clear journal policy that can be called upon, and requiring free-text statements of contribution (rather than check-boxes), can help to dissuade individuals from claiming unfair authorship.
The issue of who should be listed in what order is a thorny one and differs by discipline. In biomedicine, the first author might be expected to be the one who did most of the work; the last author would most likely be the senior investigator. In the social sciences, there are generally very few authors, and these are generally listed alphabetically. If listed alphabetically, equal contributorship is presumed for all of the authors. If not listed alphabetically, it is usually assumed that the order of authorship indicates the level of contribution of each author. Thus it is difficult to develop guidance that would be applicable across disciplines. To help prevent dispute, however, journals should have a policy on how they denote equal contribution, and consider publishing a section on the individual contributions of each author. Journals should also consider requiring authors to sign agreement to the order of authorship before publication.
Problems commonly stem from (i) individuals who claim that they deserve to be authors but have been omitted; (ii) individuals who have been included as authors but without their consent; (iii) individuals who agree to be authors but who back away from responsibility if something goes wrong – such as if an issue with the integrity of the paper comes to light; and (iv) confusion over multiple authorship.
The junior researcher would not qualify as an author according to the ICMJE criteria because he/she had no involvement in the writing of the paper nor final approval of the version to be published. However, the junior researcher may have had no opportunity to do so. He/she should have been offered this opportunity and at least included in the acknowledgment section if the opportunity was declined. In this situation, editors should contact the institution concerned and seek an investigation before considering any changes to authorship – it is not for the editor to adjudicate
This type of “guest” authorship still seems to be the accepted norm in some institutions. According to most definitions, someone who merely obtained grant money and provided top-level supervision would qualify for acknowledgment but not authorship. Having a clear journal policy that can be called upon, and requiring free-text statements of contribution (rather than check-boxes), can help to dissuade individuals from claiming unfair authorship.
The issue of who should be listed in what order is a thorny one and differs by discipline. In biomedicine, the first author might be expected to be the one who did most of the work; the last author would most likely be the senior investigator. In the social sciences, there are generally very few authors, and these are generally listed alphabetically. If listed alphabetically, equal contributorship is presumed for all of the authors. If not listed alphabetically, it is usually assumed that the order of authorship indicates the level of contribution of each author. Thus it is difficult to develop guidance that would be applicable across disciplines. To help prevent dispute, however, journals should have a policy on how they denote equal contribution, and consider publishing a section on the individual contributions of each author. Journals should also consider requiring authors to sign agreement to the order of authorship before publication.
Problems commonly stem from (i) individuals who claim that they deserve to be authors but have been omitted; (ii) individuals who have been included as authors but without their consent; (iii) individuals who agree to be authors but who back away from responsibility if something goes wrong – such as if an issue with the integrity of the paper comes to light; and (iv) confusion over multiple authorship.
The junior researcher would not qualify as an author according to the ICMJE criteria because he/she had no involvement in the writing of the paper nor final approval of the version to be published. However, the junior researcher may have had no opportunity to do so. He/she should have been offered this opportunity and at least included in the acknowledgment section if the opportunity was declined. In this situation, editors should contact the institution concerned and seek an investigation before considering any changes to authorship – it is not for the editor to adjudicate
This type of “guest” authorship still seems to be the accepted norm in some institutions. According to most definitions, someone who merely obtained grant money and provided top-level supervision would qualify for acknowledgment but not authorship. Having a clear journal policy that can be called upon, and requiring free-text statements of contribution (rather than check-boxes), can help to dissuade individuals from claiming unfair authorship.
The issue of who should be listed in what order is a thorny one and differs by discipline. In biomedicine, the first author might be expected to be the one who did most of the work; the last author would most likely be the senior investigator. In the social sciences, there are generally very few authors, and these are generally listed alphabetically. If listed alphabetically, equal contributorship is presumed for all of the authors. If not listed alphabetically, it is usually assumed that the order of authorship indicates the level of contribution of each author. Thus it is difficult to develop guidance that would be applicable across disciplines. To help prevent dispute, however, journals should have a policy on how they denote equal contribution, and consider publishing a section on the individual contributions of each author. Journals should also consider requiring authors to sign agreement to the order of authorship before publication.
Here’s a link to COPE’s authorship white paper [copies provided]
