The COPE Report 2003
34
named author, e.g.‘Smith et al.have shown that’.The first
named author is therefore generally held to have made
the greatest contribution to the research. Sometimes
significance is attached to being the last named author.
However, views about this do seem to vary, so don’t
assume that everybody feels the same way about it.
Authors have often given the last place to a senior team
member who contributed expertise and guidance. This
can be consistent with the ICMJE criteria if this person
was involved in study design, the interpretation of the
data, and critically reviewed the publication. However,
cynics may suspect that the final author is often a guest or
honorary author. (See Order of authors.)
Ghost authors: This phrase is used in two ways. It
usually refers to professional writers (often paid by
commercial sponsors) whose role is not acknowledged.
Although such writers rarely meet ICMJE criteria, since
they are not involved in the design of studies, or the
collection or interpretation of data, it is important to
acknowledge their contribution, since their involvement
may represent a potential conflict of interest. The term
can also be used to describe people who made a
significant contribution to a research project (and fulfil
the ICMJE criteria) but are not listed as authors. The
ICMJE guidelines clearly condemn this practice and state
that ‘All persons designated as authors should qualify for
authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.’
Gift authors: People who are listed as authors but who
did not make a significant contribution to the research
and therefore do not fulfil the ICMJE criteria. These are
often senior figures (e.g. heads of department) whose
names are added to curry favour (or because it is
expected). Another type of gift author is a colleague
whose name is added on the understanding that s/he will
do the same for you, regardless of your contribution to
his/her research, but simply to swell your publication lists.
Group authorship: Some journals permit the use of
group names (e.g. The XYZ Study Group) but many
require contributors to be listed (often alphabetically)
and/or the writing group to be named as well. One
problem with group names is that they are often
miscoded on databases such as Medline. The first person
in an alphabetical list of contributors sometimes becomes
the first author by default, which rather defeats the object.
Guarantor: Should we expect a radiographer to explain
the statistical methods or the statistician to interpret the
x-rays? To take increasing specialisation into account, the
latest version of the ICMJE guidelines acknowledges that
it may be unreasonable to ask individuals to take
responsibility for every aspect of the research. However,
the editors felt that it was important that one person
should guarantee the integrity of the entire project. ‘All
persons designated as authors should qualify for
authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the
work to take public responsibility for appropriate
portions of the content. One or more authors should take
responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole,
from inception to published article.’
Instructions to authors: While there is a great deal of
agreement among journal editors on authorship matters,
there are also some differences in detailed requirements and
the ways in which by-lines are presented.You should carefully
read the Instructions to Authors for your target journal.
Number of authors: There are no rules about this. In
the past, databases such as Medline limited the number of
authors they listed. This was shown to influence the
number of authors (most groups tried to stay below the
limit) and, in larger groups, probably increased jostling for
position. Now, however, most databases list all authors.
Rather than decide how many authors there should be, it
is probably best to agree who will qualify as an author, and
then simply include all those who do. However, remember
that including large numbers of authors usually increases
the time it takes to prepare, review and finalise a paper.
Order of authors: The ICMJE guidelines state that the
order of authorship, should be ‘a joint decision of the co-
authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order
in which authors are listed’. They rather unhelpfully do
not give guidance about the order in which authors are
listed. Wherever possible, make these decisions before
starting to write up the project. Some groups list authors
alphabetically, sometimes with a note to explain that all
authors made equal contributions to the study and the
publication. If you do so, make sure it is clear to the editor.
References and further reading
Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, et al.The vexed question of
authorship: views of researchers in a British medical
faculty. BMJ 1997; 314:1009–12.
Goodman NW. Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship
in published medical research. BMJ 1994; 309:1482
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Suci EST, Gil-Montero M. Problems
with indexing and citation of articles with group
authorship. JAMA 2002; 287: 2772–4.
Epstein RJ. Six authors in search of a citation: villains or
victims of the Vancouver convention? BMJ 1993;
306:765–7.
Horton R. The signature of responsibility. Lancet 1997;
350:5–6.
Hudson Jones A, McLellan F. Ethical Issues in Biomedical
Publication. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
USA, 2000.
ICMJE criteria: www.icmje.org also Annals of Internal
Medicine 2000; 133:229–31
Rennie D, Flanagin A,Yank V. The contributions of authors.
JAMA 2000; 284:89–91.
Resnik DB. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation
in science. Science & Engineering Ethics 1997; 3:237–43.
Smith J. Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice? BMJ 1994;
309:1456–7.
Acknowledgement
We thank researchers at the Department of Pharmacoepidemiology at
the University of Surrey for helpful discussion and feedback on these
guidelines.
31858_NEW_pp32_34 13/02/2004 1:07 pm Page 34