How Authorship is Defined by Multiple Publishing Organizations and STM Publishers

ABSTRACT

The most important part of a biomedical scientific manuscript is undeniably the research data. Yet, scientists generate and validate that data, culminating, in most cases, in a scientific manuscript. Thus, authorship, specifically the contributions and attributed responsibilities of the authors, remains a central issue in science publishing. This article examines the definitions of authorship as defined by four publishing organizations—the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)—and 15 science, technology, and medicine (STM) publishers. The objective is to understand whether there is consistency among definitions. Five of these STM publishers rely specifically on the ICMJE definitions of authorship, while 12/15 are COPE members. The clarity, logic, realism, feasibility, and enforceability of these definitions will be discussed. Our analysis reveals that authorship definitions are inconsistent among the 15 STM publishers. Scientists have the inherent right to determine who is an author of an article according to the ethical guidelines of their institutes, but these may differ from the guidelines indicated by publishers, while editors and publishers have the right to verify authorship.

KEYWORDS:

• Author
• collaboration
• COPE
• CSE
• ethics
• ICMJE
• significant vs substantial
• STM publishers
• WAME

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Michael Kalichman (University of California San Diego, USA), Dr. Oscar Odena (University of Glasgow, U.K.) and others, who requested to remain anonymous, for constructive discussion on this and an earlier version of the manuscript, previously submitted to Springer’s JSEE, and which is publicly available at https://retractionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/jsee-r1-teixeira-da-silva-jan-17-2013.pdf. The authors thank Klaas van Dijk (the Netherlands), Dr. Peter J. T. Verheijen (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands), Prof. Michael E. Smith (Arizona State University, USA), and Emeritus Prof. Loet Leydesdorff (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for kind, thoughtful, and constructive discussion and suggestions on a later version of this manuscript. The authors also thank the reviewers and editors of Accountability in Research for critical assessments made during peer review.