By: Shabana Amanda Ali, ORT Times Writer
Ethical dilemmas are common in the research realm. Considering the importance of peer-reviewed articles in academia, the issue of authorship is paramount. The decision of who to include as an author on a research article is often left until the end of the study. This decision is commonly made by the first author and/or the last author of the article, as these individuals are considered the lead researchers of the study. Yet there are as many rules and considerations for authorship as there are research labs in the world.
Consider the following scenarios describing 3 individuals who have contributed to your project. Person A is a colleague from a lab at a different institution who gave you a critical reagent (e.g. antibody) for your experiment with no other involvement in the project. Person B is a member of your lab who conducted a complete set of experiments (e.g. gene expression) for your project without interpreting the results in the context of the other findings. Person C is a friend in a neighbouring lab and during a casual lunch conversation, they provided you with an insightful suggestion for an experiment that ultimately helped support your hypothesis.
Who gets authorship and who doesn’t? It can be a grey area. In what order do the names appear in the authorship list? Another grey area. Some researchers would say all 3 individuals merit authorship and other researchers would say none of them do. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and UHN’s policy help clarify decision making surrounding authorship. They require each author of a manuscript to attest to having contributed to distinct parts of the authorship process. Loosely, these parts include 1) conceiving the project or contributing data, 2) providing intellectual content, 3) approving the final manuscript, and 4) being accountable for the integrity of the work.
Important to note, according to these guidelines all of these parts must be met for an individual to be considered an author of a body of work. Therefore, none of the 3 individuals described above would qualify for authorship. In common practice however, researchers may prefer to err on the side of caution in giving credit and list individuals as authors even when they have made minor contributions. As it stands, the issue of authorship is subjective and can become political and strategic.
Though it may be an uncomfortable subject to broach, the best move for trainees is to discuss authorship assignment before the study begins and as it progresses. Collaboration in research is necessary, so as people become involved in your project, it is best to discuss expectations surrounding authorship (or acknowledgement) at that time. If someone agrees to be an author on a manuscript, they should be aware of the contributions that merit authorship and ensure that they are meeting those requirements. Referring to documents such as UHN’s policy can ensure that everyone is on the same page.