ArticlePDF Available

Authorship criteria and sequence

Authors:

Abstract

not available BSMMU J 2022; 15(3): 145
Misconducts reported in scientific publication are
mostly around authorship. Although the criteria for
authorship have been delineated a long time back by
several authorities, it is still misused1. Probably this is
because of the undue craze of personal and institutional
credit, and promotion in the job, etc. However, people
sometimes forget that authorship comes with
responsibility and accountability. The International
Committee for Biomedical Journals Editors (ICMJE)
developed authorship criteria in 1979. Its latest update
was released in May 20222. ICMJE criteria are currently
followed widely. According to ICMJE criteria, a
substantive intellectual contribution to a paper is
mandatory for becoming an author. These are:
1. Conception and design, or design of the research;
or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of
data; AND
2. Drafting the manuscript 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.
Anyone intended to be an author should meet all four
criteria given above. Others who meet less than four
criteria should be a ckn owledg ed in the
acknowledgement section. The criteria do not intend to
disqualify colleagues from authorship. All individuals
who meet the first criterion should have the
opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and
final approval of the manuscript. Being the unit’s head
or administrative supervisor or data collector does not
necessarily qualify for authorship. Journal editors are
concerned about inappropriate authorship. Therefore,
many of them introduced a section on “author
contribution” to bring transparency to authorship
decisions. Some journals limit the number of authors
for each category of the articles. Despite all these
measures, the unethical authorship reportedly
remained unabated.1 The whisper of “cost”, “ghost”
and “gift” authors are still audible. It was found in 2008
in one-in-five journals3.
The sequence of the authors is another issue that
colleagues should be cautious about. There are
guidelines for authors4 on this who become the first,
last, and in-between authors5. The person with the most
contributions should become the lead author. She or he
usually becomes the corresponding author also.
However, its exception is also sometimes logical. The
corresponding author usually takes primary
responsibility for communication with the journal for
submission, responding to the peer review, and dealing
with the proof and press. The corresponding author is
responsible for responding to the post-publication
comments also. The senior author usually becomes the
last author. However, the senior authors also
sometimes write manuscripts and may decide to be the
first or last authors.
The Bangabandhu Sheikh Medical University Journal
will continue publishing an “author contributions”
section for each article This can prevent misconducts
and post-publication concerns or questions by the
authors themselves.
Md. Sharfuddin Ahmed
Vice Chancellor, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical
University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8104-7585
M Mostafa Zaman
Department of Epidemiology, Ekhlaspur Centre of
Health, Chandpur, Bangladesh
ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1736-1342
1. Castillo M. Authorship and bylines. Am J Neuroradiol
2009; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1636.
2. ICMJE. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting,
Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical
Journals Updated May 2022. Available at: https://
www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf [Accessed
on 24 Dec 2022).
3. Joseph S Wislar, Annette Flanagin, Phil B Fontanarosa,
Catherine D DeAngelis. Honorary and ghost authorship
in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional
survey. BMJ 2011; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.d6128
4. Harvard Medical School, Authorship Guidelines.
Available at: https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/
fi les/assets /Si tes /Om bud s/files /AU THO RSH IP%
20GUIDELINES.pdf [Accessed on 24 Dec 2022]
5. How to Choose the Author Order in a Manuscript.
Available at: https://redwoodink.com/resources/how-to
-choose-the-author-order-in-a-manuscript [Accessed 24
Dec 2022].
Authorship criteria and sequence
BSMMU Journal Editorial
Ahmed MS, Zaman MM. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University Journal 2022; http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bsmmuj.v15i3.63610
145
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
To assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996. Cross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire. International survey of journal authors. Sample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Self reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles. A total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P = 0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P = 0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P = 0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials. Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.
Article
From the ancient Greeks to Shakespeare, the question of authorship often arises. The issue of appropriate article authorship has always been of special interest to editors of scientific journals. In the biomedical sciences, as the complexity and funding of published studies increases, so does the