Changes

*A percentage (calculated on a wholesale or a retail price) or fixed amount, on each book sold. Publishers, at times, reduced the risk of this type of arrangement, by agreeing only to pay this after a certain amount of copies had sold. In Canada this practice occurred during the 1890s, but was not commonplace until the 1920s.

*A percentage (calculated on a wholesale or a retail price) or fixed amount, on each book sold. Publishers, at times, reduced the risk of this type of arrangement, by agreeing only to pay this after a certain amount of copies had sold. In Canada this practice occurred during the 1890s, but was not commonplace until the 1920s.

* Commissioned: Publishers made publication arrangements, and authors covered all expenses (today the practice of authors paying for their publications is often called [[vanity publishing]], and is looked down upon by many publishers, even though it may have been a common and accepted practice in the past). Publishers would receive a percentage on the sale of every copy of a book, and the author would receive the rest of the money made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author]

* Commissioned: Publishers made publication arrangements, and authors covered all expenses (today the practice of authors paying for their publications is often called [[vanity publishing]], and is looked down upon by many publishers, even though it may have been a common and accepted practice in the past). Publishers would receive a percentage on the sale of every copy of a book, and the author would receive the rest of the money made. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author]

'''Authorship''' of articles, books and other original works is a primary basis on which many academics are evaluated for employment, promotion, and [[tenure]]. In [[academic publishing]], '''authorship''' of a work is claimed by those making intellectual contributions to the completion of the [[research]] described in the work.   

'''Authorship''' of articles, books and other original works is a primary basis on which many academics are evaluated for employment, promotion, and [[tenure]]. In [[academic publishing]], '''authorship''' of a work is claimed by those making intellectual contributions to the completion of the [[research]] described in the work.   

==What constitutes authorship?==  

==What constitutes authorship?==  

Guidelines for assigning authorship vary between [[institution]]s and disciplines.  They may be formally defined or simply customary. Incorrect application of authorship rules occasionally leads to charges of [[academic dishonesty|academic misconduct]] and sanctions for the violator.  In one study, disputed authorship was the most commonly reported form of alleged misconduct. (Nylenna, M.,Andersen, D., Dahiquist, G., Sarvas, M., and Aakvaag, A.  (1999) Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. ''The Lancet'' 354: 11-18 [http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf] Acessed 2006-09-02.)

Guidelines for assigning authorship vary between [[institution]]s and disciplines.  They may be formally defined or simply customary. Incorrect application of authorship rules occasionally leads to charges of [[academic dishonesty|academic misconduct]] and sanctions for the violator.  In one study, disputed authorship was the most commonly reported form of alleged misconduct. (Nylenna, M.,Andersen, D., Dahiquist, G., Sarvas, M., and Aakvaag, A.  (1999) Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. ''The Lancet'' 354: 11-18 [https://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf] Acessed 2006-09-02.)

Some major institutions have put forth guidelines for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors specifies that authors must have made a substantial [[intellectual]] contribution to a study's conception and design, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of [[data]]. They must also have drafted or revised the article's intellectual content, and approved the final version. The [[academic journal|journal]] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' has an editorial policy that specifies "authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work" and furthermore, "authors are strongly encouraged to indicate their specific contributions" as a [[footnote]].

Some major institutions have put forth guidelines for authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors specifies that authors must have made a substantial [[intellectual]] contribution to a study's conception and design, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of [[data]]. They must also have drafted or revised the article's intellectual content, and approved the final version. The [[academic journal|journal]] ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences'' has an editorial policy that specifies "authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work" and furthermore, "authors are strongly encouraged to indicate their specific contributions" as a [[footnote]].

A phenomena termed ''ghost authorship'' is sometimes discussed in relation to industry initiated research.  When an individual makes a substantial contribution to the research and is not listed as an author, he is considered a ghost author.  Ghost authorship is considered problematic especially because it may be used to obscure the participation of researchers with conflicts of interest.(Nylenna Gøtzsche, P.C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H.K., Haahr, M.T., Altman, D.G., Chan, A.-W. (2007) Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Medicine 4(1), 47-52.)

A phenomena termed ''ghost authorship'' is sometimes discussed in relation to industry initiated research.  When an individual makes a substantial contribution to the research and is not listed as an author, he is considered a ghost author.  Ghost authorship is considered problematic especially because it may be used to obscure the participation of researchers with conflicts of interest.(Nylenna Gøtzsche, P.C., Hróbjartsson, A., Johansen, H.K., Haahr, M.T., Altman, D.G., Chan, A.-W. (2007) Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Medicine 4(1), 47-52.)

Claiming authorship twice for the same work (''e.i.'' submission of findings to more than one journal) is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of the [[New England Journal of Medicine]] 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger [http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/members/securedDocuments/v25n6p195-198.pdf].

Claiming authorship twice for the same work (''e.i.'' submission of findings to more than one journal) is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor of the [[New England Journal of Medicine]] 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger [https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/members/securedDocuments/v25n6p195-198.pdf].

==Order of authors in a list==

==Order of authors in a list==

Rules for the order of multiple authors in a list vary significantly from field to field, though they are more often consistent within a field of research. (Kennedy, D. (1985) On Academic Authorship.  Stanford University Research Policy Handbook Document 2.8. Accessed 04-07-2007. [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/2-8.html]) Some fields list authors in order of their degree of involvement in the work, with the most active contributors listed first.  Others list them alphabetically.(Stubbs, C. ''Nature'' 388, 320 (24 July 1997); doi:10.1038/40958) Biologists tend to place a supervisor or lab head last in an author list; organic chemists might put him or her first.(Pearson, H. Credit where credit's due. Nature 440, 591-592 (30 March 2006) doi:10.1038/440591a)

Rules for the order of multiple authors in a list vary significantly from field to field, though they are more often consistent within a field of research. (Kennedy, D. (1985) On Academic Authorship.  Stanford University Research Policy Handbook Document 2.8. Accessed 04-07-2007. [https://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/rph/2-8.html]) Some fields list authors in order of their degree of involvement in the work, with the most active contributors listed first.  Others list them alphabetically.(Stubbs, C. ''Nature'' 388, 320 (24 July 1997); doi:10.1038/40958) Biologists tend to place a supervisor or lab head last in an author list; organic chemists might put him or her first.(Pearson, H. Credit where credit's due. Nature 440, 591-592 (30 March 2006) doi:10.1038/440591a)

== Responsibility of authors and of coauthors ==

== Responsibility of authors and of coauthors ==

All co-authors should be able to understand and support the major points of the paper.  An author's reputation can be damaged when he allows his name to be used on work he was not intimately involved with.  In a prominent case, an American stem cell researcher had his name listed on paper that was later revealed to be fraudulent. Although the researcher is not accused of participating in the fraud, a panel at his university found that "his failure to more closely oversee research with his name on it does make him guilty of 'research misbehavior.'"(Holden, Constance. Schatten: Pitt Panel Finds ‘Misbehavior’ but Not Misconduct. Science. 17 February 2006, vol 311: 928.)

All co-authors should be able to understand and support the major points of the paper.  An author's reputation can be damaged when he allows his name to be used on work he was not intimately involved with.  In a prominent case, an American stem cell researcher had his name listed on paper that was later revealed to be fraudulent. Although the researcher is not accused of participating in the fraud, a panel at his university found that "his failure to more closely oversee research with his name on it does make him guilty of 'research misbehavior.'"(Holden, Constance. Schatten: Pitt Panel Finds ‘Misbehavior’ but Not Misconduct. Science. 17 February 2006, vol 311: 928.)

All authors, including coauthors, are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of [[Gerald Schatten]] who co-authored with [[Hwang Woo-Suk]], the case of  Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain who co-authored papers with [[Malcolm Pearce]] (see [http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/310/6994/1547?ijkey=96921f60856061f95125fe2d11452a1a4e7623f3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha lessons from the Pearce affair]), and the coauthors with [[Jan Hendrik Schön]] at [[Bell Laboratories]]. More recent cases include [http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/ Charles Nemeroff], then the editor-in-chief of ''Neuropsychopharmacology'', and the so-called  [http://www.doctorsintegrity.org/blumsohn.htm Sheffield Actonel affair].

All authors, including coauthors, are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of [[Gerald Schatten]] who co-authored with [[Hwang Woo-Suk]], the case of  Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain who co-authored papers with [[Malcolm Pearce]] (see [https://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/310/6994/1547?ijkey=96921f60856061f95125fe2d11452a1a4e7623f3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha lessons from the Pearce affair]), and the coauthors with [[Jan Hendrik Schön]] at [[Bell Laboratories]]. More recent cases include [https://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/ Charles Nemeroff], then the editor-in-chief of ''Neuropsychopharmacology'', and the so-called  [https://www.doctorsintegrity.org/blumsohn.htm Sheffield Actonel affair].

In addition, authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. Both scientific and academic censure can result from a failure to keep primary data; the case of Dr. [[Ranjit Chandra]] of [[Memorial University of Newfoundland]] provides a good example of this (O'Neil-Yates, Chris: The Secret Life of Dr. Chandra. The National (CBC Newscast). 30 January 2006, [http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/chandra/]). Many scientific journals also require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors may have commercial or non-commercial [[conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]]. Outlined in the author disclosure statement for the [[American Journal of Human Biology]][http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/37873/ForAuthors.html], this is a policy more common in scientific fields where funding often comes from corporate sources.  Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies ([http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/ Nemeroff],  [http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/ Blumsohn]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship]

In addition, authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. Both scientific and academic censure can result from a failure to keep primary data; the case of Dr. [[Ranjit Chandra]] of [[Memorial University of Newfoundland]] provides a good example of this (O'Neil-Yates, Chris: The Secret Life of Dr. Chandra. The National (CBC Newscast). 30 January 2006, [https://www.cbc.ca/national/news/chandra/]). Many scientific journals also require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors may have commercial or non-commercial [[conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]]. Outlined in the author disclosure statement for the [[American Journal of Human Biology]][https://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jabout/37873/ForAuthors.html], this is a policy more common in scientific fields where funding often comes from corporate sources.  Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies ([https://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/ Nemeroff],  [https://www.slate.com/id/2133061/ Blumsohn]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship]

==See also==

==See also==