Academic Publishing Navigator: 2025/015 | Understanding Authorship Ethics: Who Deserves Credit and Why

Authorship ethics focuses on giving credit only to those who make genuine intellectual contributions and who can take responsibility for the work, while recognizing everyone else appropriately in acknowledgements or other roles. Clear, shared criteria and early discussions within the team are essential to avoid unfair practices such as guest, ghost, or honorary authorship.

Who qualifies as an author

Most major guidelines (ICMJE, CSE, large publishers) converge on four core conditions for authorship. A person should generally:

Make a substantial contribution to the conception/design or data collection/analysis/interpretation.
Help draft the manuscript or critically revise it for important intellectual content.
Approve the final version to be published.
Agree to be accountable for their part and, broadly, for the integrity of the work.

Anyone who meets all these conditions should be listed as an author, and those who meet only some should usually not be added as “honorary” authors. Teams are encouraged to ensure that those who contributed substantially to the research are given the genuine opportunity to participate in writing, revising and approving the manuscript so that deserving contributors are not excluded.

Authorship vs acknowledgement

Ethically, authorship is reserved for substantial intellectual and accountable contributions, while more limited or purely technical help is recognized separately. Typical acknowledged contributors include:

Technical staff performing routine measurements or assistance.
Colleagues who provided feedback but did not engage in major revisions.
Funding agencies, administrative support, or editing help.

Many institutional and journal policies state that contributors who do not meet all authorship criteria should be named in an acknowledgements or contributor section, with their role described and their permission obtained. This separation protects the meaning of authorship while still giving visibility to valuable assistance.

Why authorship credit matters

Authorship carries both recognition and responsibility. It influences careers, promotions, funding prospects and reputation, while also signalling who can vouch for the accuracy, integrity and accountability of the research record.

Because the stakes are high, unfair authorship (gift, guest, ghost or coerced authorship) is considered a form of research misbehavior that can distort the scholarly record and harm junior researchers. Ethically robust authorship practices help maintain trust in science, protect early-career researchers, and align credit with genuine intellectual labour.

Common unethical authorship practices

Several recurrent patterns are widely treated as unethical in guidelines and editor statements. Examples include:

Guest/honorary authorship: adding influential or senior names who did not meet authorship criteria.
Ghost authorship: omitting individuals who wrote or substantially shaped the work, often professional writers or junior researchers.
Coercive authorship: pressuring team members to add or drop names for political or hierarchical reasons.

These practices can mislead readers about who is accountable, inflate CVs unjustifiably and undermine trust inside research groups. Journals and ethics bodies encourage institutions to treat such cases seriously, sometimes leading to corrections, notices or institutional investigation.

Good practices to decide “who deserves credit”

Good authorship decisions rely on early, explicit agreement and documentation. Helpful practices include:

Discussing criteria, author list and order at project design stage and revisiting them as contributions change.
Using structured contribution taxonomies (such as CRediT) to document who did what.
Recording agreements in writing (emails or lab policies) and aligning with the target journal’s authorship policy.

When disputes arise, guidance recommends first resolving them within the group or department; if that fails, neutral institutional bodies (ethics committees, ombudspersons, research integrity offices) can mediate. For educators, explicitly teaching these norms to students and early-career researchers is one of the most effective ways to prevent later conflicts about “who deserves credit and why.”

Academic Publishing Navigator

Welcome to Academic Publishing Navigator

2025/015 | Understanding Authorship Ethics: Who Deserves Credit and Why

Understanding Authorship Ethics: Who Deserves Credit and Why

Who qualifies as an author

Authorship vs acknowledgement

Why authorship credit matters

Common unethical authorship practices

Good practices to decide “who deserves credit”

References