Authorship in Scientific Papers: Guest Authorship versus Authorship without Consent.

Krishnaja A. P. 11th December 2008.

This is not a general paper. This is my personal view; the result of an inner turmoil I
experienced when confronted twice, with similar unpleasant situations. The first situation was
when a colleague put my name, without my knowledge or consent, on an article I am ashamed
to see my name associated with. An article I would not have agreed to put my name on, as an
author, under compulsion of any sort. The second instance was when my name was omitted in
a publication arising out of a work I had initiated, executed, analyzed data for and drawn
conclusions. Instead, another colleague had put his name as a co-author (guest / gift
authorship), without being remotely connected to or contributing in any way to the said work.
Both times, I came across the papers much later, when the damage was already done. Both
these times I had taken up the matter with the concerned authorities. Many others would have
come across similar situations in their professional life. I hope they fight for justice.

Justice – refers to the ethical duty to treat others fairly and to give them what they deserve:
"An individual has been treated justly when he has been given what he or she is due or owed,
what he or she deserves or can legitimately claim" (Beauchamp, T. & Walters, L. (1982).
Contemporary issues in bioethics 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).

Who should be included as co-authors? Why are decisions about authorship such an
important part of scientific enterprise? These questions reflect important issues that are
challenging to all of us who are involved in the business of doing science.

Research data and results are not strictly inventions. But if you conduct your research in a
Government institution, Research organization, University lab, or while employed by any
institution you are bound by the rules and regulations in existence there.

Conception, design, resource provision, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing and
revision are the important components of research until its culmination in a final published
paper. In research, the most important aspect is conception of an idea and its intellectual
nourishment.
Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. A good reputation relies largely on the
publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or
perish". In such career settings, decisions regarding promotions are supposed to be heavily
influenced not only by the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals but also by the
number of first-authored publications. Professionals with strong publication records are often
considered (though it is not always the case) to have more competence and expertise than their
less published counterparts.

Authorship is at the heart of the scientific process. Clearly, authorship credit and authorship
order are not trivial matters. Because of the importance of authorship credit, dilemmas may
arise when more than one person is involved in a scholarly project. Authors must accept
intellectual as well as ethical responsibility for their publications. It is imperative that consent
is obtained from all authors to put their names in an article and a name should not be included
without his / her consent. Irresponsible authorship is a problem.

(R. D. Ganatra Ethics of authorship of scientific papers. IJME Jul-Sep1996-4)

International convention prescribes that the principal scientific worker, the person who has
done most of the work, should be the first author of a paper. The order of names after the first
name depends on the extent of the contribution of each worker to the research project.
Normally the principal investigator does not make a distinction between the project
participants, those who participate intelligently or those who carry out assigned tasks in a
mediocre manner and includes both categories as co- authors.

A gift of co- authorship to a person, who has per se not contributed anything, is often made
with some ulterior motive. Continuation of the job, promotion in the job, sponsorship for a
fellowship or travel abroad are all enticing contributory factors to such an offer. A gift of
authorship is in fact a bribe paid by the real scientific worker to fulfill his aspirations.
Acceptance of this gift by the coauthor who had contributed nothing is an obligation to do
something in return. The Section head / Division Head / Director of a research institution
usually reserve the right of approving what is being published from the institution. Often this
right of approval is converted into that of participation. Even the guidelines include ‘approval
right’ as a reason for authorship. The practice of putting the name of the heads of units as co-
author is usually justified by the argument that he / she was responsible for providing
facilities for carrying out research. Promoting research is the normal minimum task of any
heads of research units. In fact, mere possession of an institutional position, such as Section
Head / Division Head, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research
or to the writing for publication are appropriately acknowledged, such as in footnotes.

Determining appropriate authorship is important to scientific integrity. Two basic questions

involved in the simple task of putting names of the authors on a scientific paper are inclusion
of only those names who are genuine contributors and no omission of names of genuine
contributors in the conduct of your research. Only your conscience and common sense will
help you resolve these ethical issues in science. (R. D. Ganatra Ethics of authorship of
scientific papers IJME Jul-Sep1996-4).

Of course the right answers are a matter of your choice. It’s not always easy; some researchers
have found the consequences of inappropriate decisions to be embarrassing or worse – poor
decisions can cause irreparable harm to collaborative partnerships, reputation, and current
and future employment. In the past, scientists have sued former colleagues / research
partners, revised published articles to correct authorship, and well-respected researchers have
tarnished their reputations by not thoroughly considering and appropriately crediting their
colleagues. “The best situation for students, post docs, and scientists is to be affiliated with an
institution and lab that promotes accountability and workplace ethics.”

In any case, the whistleblowers are always in trouble. They are labelled “troublemakers” and
not allowed to participate in a positive manner.