Multiple authors – responsibility – publication rules

Why is the question of authorship important? One reason is that the au- thors’ names are, rightly or wrongly, seen by colleagues in their field as an indication of the quality of a publication. Consequently, it is important to know who actually did the work, so as to be able to evaluate the results. A second reason is that researchers applying for positions are assessed to a large degree on the basis of their publications. Obviously, therefore, it is important that no one is listed as an author who should not be, and that no one who should be so listed is omitted. In addition, most credit is to be gained from appearing as the first author of a scholarly article. Two questions thus need to be asked:

• _{Who should be designated as the author or authors of an article?}

• In what order should multiple authors be listed?

The first question has been discussed at length internationally. An in- fluential group of journal editors decided to attempt to draw up general guidelines on co-authorship. The result was a set of criteria described in the

Uniform Requirements mentioned in section 9.10 below.

To be credited as an author according to these criteria, it is not sufficient, for example, to collect patient data or provide a limited input – such contri- butions can be acknowledged in other ways, for example in notes or a pref- ace. “Bartering” between authors, whereby they take turns as first author in

different publications, should also be avoided, unless there is justification for it on the basis of their actual contributions. A “political” placing high up on the list of authors to secure funding for one of the groups involved, for example, is inappropriate.

For an individual to be judged to have done enough to be listed as a co- author, several criteria in fact have to be met: he or she must have contributed to the basic conception or analysis, and to the drafting or critical revision of the article. Finally, all the authors must confirm that they accept responsibi- lity for the article. This also rules out “honorary authorship”, i.e. including a well-known scholar as author purely as an honour – and perhaps with the ulterior motive of more readily securing publication of the paper.

An alternative to the approach just described is simply to list everyone who has been involved in the work in some way and to state what they have done, roughly in the manner of the closing credits of a film or television programme. Which is better depends on what one wishes to achieve. If the

aim is to reduce the number of people given as authors, the Uniform Require-

ments criteria are to be preferred. If we want a system that reflects what con- tribution everyone has in fact made, then the second approach is better.

As regards the order of authorship, too, practices vary. One common tra- dition is to list the authors in alphabetical order, unless one of them has had a clearly dominant responsibility for the work presented. If the order is other than alphabetical, the first author will generally have made the most important contribution. Appearing first in the list will then carry most credit (assuming it is a good article). To avoid misunderstandings, disap- pointment and frustration, it is important for the rules in this respect, too, to be known, and for deviations from them to be stated and explained. New PhD students should be familiarized with such rules as part of their post- graduate training.

Many problems can be avoided if agreement is reached at an early stage, not only on who does what, but also on the order of authorship. Preliminary agreements can and should of course be changed if someone other than the person originally intended as first author turns out to make the biggest con- tribution.

What would you do in the following situation?

Prior to a meeting of a PhD examining committee, one of the members discovers that three of the articles making up the thesis have a co-author who died three and a half years ago. The articles concerned were published this year or have recently been submitted. The author in question had in other words been dead for at least two years before the papers were completed. The data were collected around five years ago, however, so the person concerned may have had a hand in planning the project and collecting the data,

but hardly in their analysis and interpretation. Still less was he in a position to influence the drafting of the articles or to choose not to be listed as co-author if he had felt unable to accept the contents. And obviously he could not have approved the final versions of the texts.

Is it right for the deceased researcher to be listed as a co-author? What arguments could be ad- vanced for and against his inclusion? What course of action should have been chosen instead?