Authorship Disputes
Introduction
Theoretically, authorship reflects academic identity and ownership of contribution. In practice, however, it can be stressful and controversial. Studies reveal that many deserving contributors are denied recognition, while individuals who contributed little or nothing often appear as authors.
The authors’ list is not just a formality, it reflects both rights and responsibilities. Editors may differ in their interpretation of authorship, often seeking guidance from reliable sources. Still, the fact remains that only honest authorship practices can maintain trust in the scholarly record.
This guide aims to help researchers avoid and resolve authorship-related disputes, offering preventive measures and concrete solutions.
Common Authorship Misconduct
Authorship disputes may include one or more of the following issues
- Omission (Ghost Authorship): A contributor claims to have made a substantial contribution but was not listed as an author.
- Unwarranted Inclusion (Gift or Guest Authorship): Someone is listed as an author despite not having made the requisite contributions.
- Order Dispute: Disagreement over the sequence of authors (first, last, middle).
- Withdrawal or Denial of Responsibility: An author disclaims or refuses to take responsibility for part or all of the work.
- Lack of Consent: Someone is included as an author without their consent or knowledge.
Other misrepresentations may also occur, often tied to academic tradition, hierarchy, or political pressure.
Principles & Boundaries
- Editors and journals do not adjudicate who deserves authorship in the first instance. Determining who qualifies should primarily be done by the authors and their institutions.
- If authors cannot resolve the dispute among themselves, the institutions (e.g., universities, research groups, or ethics offices) where the work was performed should intervene.
- The journal may temporarily pause further processing (e.g. review, publication) of a manuscript if an authorship dispute is flagged, until the matter is resolved.
- Any change in authorship (addition, removal, reordering) after submission or publication must be accompanied by a written explanation and signed agreement from all affected authors.
Prevention: “Better Than Cure”
Preventing conflict is preferable to resolving it later. Adopt the following practices
- Early and ongoing dialogue: At project outset (and as work evolves), discuss authorship, roles, and order.
- Written record of contributions: Maintain logs, drafts, or use a contributor taxonomy (e.g. CRediT) to document who did what.
- Transparent authorship criteria: Make your journal’s criteria and dispute procedures publicly accessible.
- Mutual consent: All authors should approve the final manuscript and accept accountability.
- Encourage open communication: most disputes arise from poor communication.
These practices are recommended broadly in publication ethics literature.
Categories of Authorship Issues
- Disputes: When people follow OARS guidelines but disagree on interpretation.
- Misbehavior: When people intentionally violate OARS guidelines.
Victims of authorship omission should first try to resolve the issue politely with their supervisor, showing documentary evidence (guidelines, lab notes, etc.). If unresolved, escalate to the Head of Department or Dean, but always keep prior communication transparent. If unethical inclusion or exclusion persists, the issue should be documented, raised in group meetings, and submitted to the journal with a clear statement of facts.
Forms of Contributorship
Responding When a Dispute Arises
When the journal becomes aware of an authorship dispute (via authors, reviewers, or external complaints), the following steps apply
Step
How It Shows Up
0.1
Acknowledge & Pause
The editorial office confirms receipt and may suspend manuscript processing until resolution.
0.2
Working across teams, disciplines, and regions
Request from all parties: a description of the dispute, timeline, and a signed agreement about proposed resolution.
0.3
Always striving for top quality
Ask the authors to resolve among themselves (or via mediation at their institutions).
0.4
Embracing new ideas and tools
If no internal resolution is possible, request that their institutions review and report their findings.
0.5
Valuing diversity of ideas and backgrounds
If agreed, apply authorship changes only after receiving consensus and, if needed, institutional documentation.
0.6
Post-Publication Corrections
For published work, issue a correction, erratum, expression of concern, or in extreme cases, retraction.
0.7
Record Keeping & Transparency
Maintain confidential records of the resolution process, disclosing decisions to authors (as allowed) and readers.
Corrective Actions
If a name is wrongly included: Authors may request withdrawal of their name before publication. If already published, a corrigendum or erratum can be issued.
If a name is wrongly omitted: Authors may raise the concern with contributors. If all agree, the journal can publish a corrigendum to add the name.
Journals should discourage unnecessary disputes and only intervene where clear evidence is provided.
Number and Sequence of Authors
- There is no universal rule on the number of authors, but all substantial contributors should be included.
- Large author groups require more time for review, communication, and finalization.
- The order of names must be agreed upon before submission. Some teams use alphabetical order, while others base it on contribution. Journals should clarify acceptable practices.
Thoughts on Resolving Disputes
- Journals should motivate contributors through transparent acknowledgements.
- Some disputes may require institutional regulators or ethics committees to intervene.
- Editors should apply OARS guidelines, using corrigenda, disclaimers, or retractions where necessary.
- Above all, clear communication, documentation, and honesty remain the best safeguards against disputes.
