Authorship: From credit to accountability. Reflections from the editors network

(1)

www.elsevier.es/revcolcar

Revista Colombiana de

Cardiología

ARTÍCULO ESPECIAL

Authorship: From Credit to Accountability. Reﬂections From the Editors Network ^夽

Fernando Alfonso

^a^,∗

, Parounak Zelveian

^b

, Jean-Jacques Monsuez

^c

, Michael Aschermann

^d

, Michael Boehm

^e

, Alfonso Buendia Hernandez

^f

, Tzung-Dau Wang

^g

, Ariel Cohen

^h

, Sebija Izetbegovic

ⁱ

, Anton Doubell

^j

, Dario Echeverri

^k

, Nuray Enc ¸

^l

, Ignacio Ferreira-González

^m

, Anetta Undas

ⁿ

, Ulrike Fortmüller

^o

, Plamen Gatzov

^p

, Carmen Ginghina

^q

, Lino Goncalves

^r

,

Faouzi Addad

^s

, Mahmoud Hassanein

^t

, Gerd Heusch

^u

, Kurt Huber

^v

, Robert Hatala

^w

, Mario Ivanusa

^x

, Chu-Pak Lau

^y

, Germanas Marinskis

^z

, Livio Dei Cas

^aa

,

Carlos Eduardo Rochitte

^bb

, Kjell Nikus

^cc

, Eckart Fleck

^dd

, Luc Pierard

^ee

, Slobodan Obradovi´ c

^ff

, María del Pilar Aguilar Passano

^gg

, Yangsoo Jang

^hh

, Olaf Rødevand

ⁱⁱ

, Mikael Sander

^jj

, Evgeny Shlyakhto

^kk

, C ¸etin Erol

^ll

, Dimitris Tousoulis

^mm

, Dilek Ural

ⁿⁿ

, Jan Piek

^oo

, Albert Varga

^pp

, Andreas J. Flammer/Franc ¸ois Mach

^qq

, Alban Dibra

^rr

, Faiq Guliyev

^ss

, Alexander Mrochek

^tt

, Mamanti Rogava

^uu

, Ismael Guzman Melgar

^vv

,

Giuseppe Di Pasquale

^ww

, Kanat Kabdrakhmanov

^xx

, Laila Haddour

^yy

, Zlatko Fras

^zz

, Claes Held

^aaa

, Valentyn Shumakov

^bbb

, On behalf of the Editors’ Network, European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Task Force

aChairmanEditorsNetwork

bEditorinChiefArmenianJournalofCardiology

cEditorinChiefArchivesdesmaladiesducœuretdesvaisseaux-Pratique

dEditorinChiefCoretVasa

eEditorinChiefClinicalResearchinCardiology

fEditorinChiefArchivosdeCardiologíadeMéxico

gEditorinChiefActaCardiologicaSinica

hEditorinChiefArchivesofCardiovascularDiseases

iEditorinChiefMedicinskiZurnal

jEditorinChiefSAHeart

kEditorinChiefRevistaColombianadeCardiología

lEditorinChiefKardiyovaskulerHemsirelikDergisi

mEditorinChiefRevistaEspa˜noladeCardiología

nEditorinChiefKardiologiaPolska

夽 ThisisajointsimultaneouspublicationinitiativeinvolvingallinterestedNationalandAfﬁliatedCardiovascularJournalsoftheEuropean SocietyofCardiology(ESC).

∗Correspondingauthor.CardiologyDepartment.HospitalUniversitariodeLaPrincesa.InstitutodeInvestigaciónsanitariaIIS-IP.Universidad AutónomadeMadrid.C/DiegodeLeón62.Madrid28006.Spain.

E-mailaddress:falf@hotmail.com(F.Alfonso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rccar.2019.02.002

0120-5633/©2019SociedadColombianadeCardiolog´ıayCirug´ıaCardiovascular.PublishedbyElsevierEspa˜na,S.L.U.Thisisanopenaccess articleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

(2)

oEditorinChiefCardioNews

pEditorinChiefBulgarianJournalofCardiology

qEditorinChiefRomanianJournalofCardiology

rEditorinChiefRevistaPortuguesadeCardiologia

sEditorinChiefRevueTunisiennedeCardiologie

tEditorinChiefTheEgyptianHeartJournal

uEditorinChiefBasicResearchinCardiology

vEditorinChiefAustrianJournalfoCardiology

wEditorinChiefCardiologyLetters

xEditorinChiefCardiologiaCroatica

yEditorinChiefJournaloftheHongKongColleageofCardiology

zEditorinChiefSeminarsinCardiovascularMedicine

aaEditorinChiefJournalofCardiovascularMedicine

bbEditorinChiefArquivosBrasileirosdeCardiologia

ccEditorinChiefSydänääni(HeartBeat)

ddEditorinChiefDerKardiologe

eeEditorinChiefActaCardiológica

ffEditorinChiefHeartandBloodVessels

ggEditorinChiefRevistaUruguayadeCardiología

hhEditorinChiefKoreanCirculationJournal

iiEditorinChiefHjerteforum

jjEditorinChiefCardiologiskForum

kkEditorinChiefRussianJournalofCardiology

llEditorinChiefAnatolianJournalofCardiology

mmEditorinChiefHellenicJournalofCardiology

nnEditorinChiefArchivesoftheTurkishSocietyofCardiology

ooEditorinChiefNetherlandsHeartJournal

ppEditorinChiefCardiologiaHungarica

qqEditorinChiefCardiovascularMedicine

rrEditorinChiefRevistaShqiptareeKardiologjisë

ssEditorinChiefAzerbaijanJournalofCardiology

ttEditorinChiefCardiologyinBelarus

uuEditorinChiefCardiologyandInternalMedicine(GeorgianInternationalSocietyofCardiomyopathy)

vvEditorinChiefRevistaGuatemaltecadeCardiología

wwEditorinChiefGiornaleItalianodiCardiologia

xxEditorinChiefJournalTerapevticheskiyvestnic

yyEditorinChiefRevueMarocainedeCardiologie

zzEditorinChiefSlovenskakardiologija

aaaEditorinChiefSvenskCardiologi

bbbEditorinChiefUkrainianJournalofCardiology

Received5February2019;accepted6February2019

KEYWORDS Editorialethics;

ScientiﬁcProcess;

Authorship;

Accountability;

ScientiﬁcJournals;

Journals

Abstract TheEditors’NetworkoftheEuropeanSocietyofCardiology(ESC)providesadynamic forumforeditorialdiscussionsandendorsestherecommendationsoftheInternationalCommit- teeofMedicalJournalEditors(ICMJE)toimprovethescientiﬁcqualityofbiomedicaljournals.

Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasizedthatauthorship alsorequiresresponsibilityandaccountability. Theseissuesare nowcoveredbythenew(fourth)criterionforauthorship.Authorsshouldagreetobeaccount- able andensurethatquestionsregardingtheaccuracy andintegrityoftheentire workwill beappropriatelyaddressed.Thisreviewdiscussestheimplicationsofthisparadigmshifton authorshiprequirementswiththeaimofincreasingawarenessongoodscientiﬁcandeditorial practices.

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

(3)

PALABRASCLAVE Éticaeditorial;

Procesocientíﬁco;

Autoría;

Rendicióndecuentas;

Revistascientíﬁcas;

Revistas

LaAutoría:DelCréditoalaResponsabilidad.ReﬂexionesdesdelaReddeEditores

Resumen LaReddeEditoresdelaSociedadEuropeadeCardiología(ESC,porsussiglasen inglés)proveeunforodinámicoparalasdiscusioneseditorialesyavalalasrecomendacionesdel ComitéInternacionaldeEditoresdeRevistasMédicas(ICMJE,porsussiglasininglés)paramejo- rarlacalidadcientíficadelasrevistasbiomédicas.Laautoríaconfierecréditoeimportantes beneficiosacadémicos.Sinembargo,recientementeelICMJEhaenfatizadoquelaautoríatam- biénexigeresponsabilidadyrendicióndecuentas.Estosasuntosahorasetratanenelnuevo (cuarto)criterioparalaautoría.Losautoresdeberáncomprometersearendircuentasyasegu- rarquelasinquietudesconrespectoalaprecisiónylaintegridaddeltrabajoensutotalidad seránabordadas demaneraapropiada.Estarevisión tratalasimplicaciones deestecambio paradigmáticoenlosrequisitosdeautoríaconelfindecrearconcienciadelasbuenasprácticas científicasyeditoriales.

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

The Editors’ Network of the European Society of Car- diology (ESC) is committed to foster implementation of high-quality editorial standards among ESC National Soci- etiesCardiovascular Journals(NSCJ).^1-6 NSCJplay amajor role in disseminating original scientiﬁc research worldwide,but also in educationand harmonization of clinical practice.^2---6 Promoting editorial excellence is paramount to increasing the scientiﬁc prestige of NSCJ.^1---6 In this regard,theEditors’Networkendorsestherecommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Edit- ors(ICMJE).¹TheICMJEcontinuouslyupdatesitsdocument onuniformrequirements(previouslyknownastheVancou- ver guidelines) for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. These include recommendations for the conduct,reporting,editingandpublicationofscholarlywork.

Notably,vexingethicalissuesaregainingincreasingeditorial relevance.¹

Biomedical research relies on trust and transparency of the scientiﬁc process where authors remain centre stage.^1,7---9 This review will discuss the new recommenda- tionsonauthorshipissuedbytheICMJE^1,10,11withtheaimof providingfurthereditorialinsighttobeprogressivelyimple- mentedbytheNSCJ.

New authorship requirements

In August 2013 an important revision of the ICMJE recommendations included a fourth criterion for authorship toemphasize each author’s responsibility tostand by the integrity of the entire work.^1,10,11 Classically, the ICMJE requirements for authorshipincluded: 1) Substantialcon- tributions tothe conception or design of the workor the acquisition,analysis,orinterpretationofdataforthework;

and,2)Draftingtheworkorrevisingitcriticallyforimpor- tant intellectual content; and, 3) Final approval of the version to be published. In the updated ICMJE requirements a new (fourth) criterion also should be met.¹ This novelrequirementforauthorshipincludesagreementtobe accountable for allaspectsof thework andensuring that questionsrelated totheaccuracy or integrityof any part

ofthe work areappropriately investigated andresolved.¹ The essence of this new requirement is that it helps to balancecreditwithresponsibility.¹⁰ Withthis revisionthe ICMJEemphasizesthatauthorshipisaseriouscommitment to accountability. Now all 4 conditions must be met by each individual author.¹ The addition of a fourth criterion was motivated by situations in which some authors were unable to, or refused to, respond to inquiries on potential scientific misconduct regarding certain aspects of the study or by denying any responsibility.^1,10---14 Edit- orsoccasionallyfacereluctantauthorswhotrytodistance themselvesfromaconflictivepublicationandshiftrespon- sibilitieselsewhere.¹¹Themainnovelideaistoemphasize theresponsibility ofeachauthortostandfor theintegrity oftheentirework.Eachauthorofascientificpaperneeds tounderstand thefull scopeof thework,know whichco- authorsareresponsibleforspecificcontributionsandhave confidenceinco-authors’abilityandintegrity.^1,10-14Should questionsariseregardinganyaspectofastudy,theonusis onallauthors toinvestigate and ensureresolution of the issue,which isthen tobepresentedtothe corresponding Editor^1,10---14.

To better appraise this4^th criterionthe precise mean- ingofresponsibilityandaccountabilityshouldberevisited.

Responsibilityisdeﬁnedasthemoralobligation toensure thataparticulartaskisadequatelyperformed.^15---16Accord- ingly,responsibilityrelatestotasksthathavebeenassigned to an individual.^15,16 By contrast, accountability denotes thedutytojustifyagivenactiontoothersandtorespond fortheresultsofthataction.^15,16Therefore,accountability mainlyrelatestotheawarenessandassumptionoftherole ofbeingtheonetoblameifthingsgowrong.^15,16Neverthe- less,oftentimesresponsibilityisusedinterchangeablywith accountability.^15,16

Claiming that each individual author is held morally responsibleineverycasethatmisconductisdetectedwould appearunreasonableconsideringthecomplexityofcurrent research. Rather, the fourth criterion suggests that each authormustcooperatetoclarifymisconductrelatedissues ifthepaperiscalledintoquestion.^1,16

(4)

Researchcredits

Acceptanceandpublicationofascientiﬁc paperisalways a cause of major celebration among authors.¹¹ Author- ship provides prestige, credit and scientiﬁc recognition.

Authorship has important academic, social and ﬁnancial implications.^1,11Currently,authorshipremainsamajorcrite- rionforpromotionandcareeradvancementamongscholars.

Publication records are revised in depth for university tenuresandjobappointments.Totalnumberofpublications andcitationsremaincurrencieswidelyusedtoascertainthe academicvalue of individual investigators.In thisregard, the ICMJE recommendations on authorship are intended to ensure that anybody who has made a ‘‘substantive’’

intellectual contribution to a paper is given credit as an author.¹

PotentialProblemsDerivedFromPublicationofResearch Publication of a scientific paper usually marks the end of a research project and opens a time for discussion andcriticismor acceptanceby thescientificcommunity.V Occasionally, the healthy scientific debate fuelled by the publication of the paper raises serious concerns. In rare cases,eventheintegrityoftheresearchorpublishedpaper isbroughtintoquestion.¹¹ Inthesesituationsauthorsmay trytoescape fromtheembarrassmentofpublishingasci- entificallyflawedstudy.This explains whythe newfourth criterionis sopertinenttoaddressissuesrelatedtoscien- tificmisconduct.Shouldirregularitiesbeconfirmed,editors mustreporttotheauthorsácademicinstitutionand,eventually,tothe readers, withexpressions ofconcern, or, in theworstcasescenario,witharetractionofthepublished paper.¹

Considerations on classical authorship criteria

Any researcher listed as an author should have made a

‘‘substantive’’intellectualcontributiontothestudyandbe preparedtotakepublicresponsibilityforthework,ensure itsaccuracy, and beable to identify his/hercontribution tothe study.¹ However, a problem with the deﬁnition of authorshipinvolves the subjectivity in what constitutesa

‘substantial’contributiontotheresearchorthemanuscript.

In fact, the precise threshold of involvement required to qualifyforauthorshipremainsunclear.Astherealproblem lies in deﬁning what represents a ‘‘substantial’’ contribution, means to quantify the actual work performed by individual authors have been proposed. In this regard it hasbeen suggestedthatsubstantialcontributiontoapub- lication consists of an important intellectual contribution withoutwhich,apartoftheworkoreventheentirework, couldnothavebeencompletedorthemanuscriptcouldnot havebeenwritten.¹⁷

According totheICMJE ¹personswhodonot qualify as an author include those who ‘‘only’’ provide: 1) recruit- mentof patients toa trial, 2)general datacollection, 3) obtainingsamplesforastudy,4)acquisition offunding,5) general supervision of the research group by the department chairperson. Conversely, persons who signiﬁcantly contributedtothepaperbutdonotmeetthe4criteriafor

authorshipshouldbelistedintheacknowledgementsection afterobtainingtheirconsent.

Publishing individual contributions

The ICMJEauthorship guidance is intentionallybroad and open toaccommodate the diversity of scientific research and allow spacefor the specific editorial policiesof individual journals.¹ However, many have requested a more structured authorship framework to improve consistency andclarityin authorshiprequirements.The bestmeansto present the relationship betweenauthorship andintellec- tual involvement in research remains an issue of ongoing debate. Currently, the ICMJE does not mandate that all authorscommunicateexactlywhat‘‘contributions’’qualify themtobeanauthor.¹However,unlessauthorshipreflectsto whatextentindividualresearchershavebeenintellectually involvedintheworkitwillremainmisleadingregardingrel- ativeresearchmerits.Honestyandopennessinattribution ensuresfairnessincredit.Manyeditorsarguethatauthor- ship criteria should be revised to request a contribution declaration, in order to fully capture deserving author- shipandcredit.Accordingly,topromotetransparencyand removeambiguityonspecificcontributions,editorsarenow strongly encouraged to develop and implement contributorship policies in their journals.¹ As discussed, however, thequestionregardingthequalityandquantityofcontribu- tionrequiredtoqualifyanindividualforauthorshipremain unresolved.¹ An interesting proposal in this regard suggests including contributorship badges. These badges are designedtofullycapturethedifferenttypesofcollaboration in thesubmittedworkthat,otherwise, willbedifficultto recognise withtraditionalcredentials. Contributorslisting allowsamoreaccurateandgranularassessmentofcredit.

In addition, this strategy provides additional insight on contributor-adjustedproductivity.¹⁸Ideally,eachICMJEcri- terionshouldhaveatleastonebadge.Eachbadgeincludesa listofauthorsmakingacontributiontothatspeciﬁcrole.^18-20 Others have proposed the value of assigning a numerical valuetobetterevaluatethedegreeofrelativecontributions and,eventually,tocreateacontribution-speciﬁcindexfor eachauthortobetterassessresearchproductivity.^18-20

Detailing authors’ contributions inform the readers of thenatureoftheindividualworkandavoidsdilutingcred- itsbypreciselyallocatingmerits.Inmulti-authoredpapers it is particularlyimportant thatauthors state the specific role they played in the research. Each research represents a significant amount of effortand, on average, the larger the number of authors the smaller percentage of effort for a given author. Other forms of contributions, not fulfilling criteria for authorship, may be recognized in the acknowledgement section or by listing these peo- pleascollaborators.This isanimportantissueconsidering theeverincreasingnumberofauthorsseen inrecentpub- lications that represents a paradigm shift resulting from team-work research.^18-24 Contributors credited as authors shouldtake full responsibility andremain accountablefor whatispublished.^1,18 Inthisregard,contribution-adjusted creditscanbefurtherweightedbyother factorstoderive moreeffectiveparametersformeasuringresearchproduc- tivity. Currently, every co-author gets the exact amount

(5)

of citation credit regardless of their contribution. There- fore,an‘‘authormatrix’’(includingparticipationinideas, work, writing and stewardship), has been proposed to

‘‘quantify’’ individual contributions and roles in multi- authoredpapers.^18---24

By-line location and hierarchy

Thereisnoadequateguidancefor authorsequencein the by-line. In fact, practices toclarify the relativemerit of the different coauthors in a manuscript vary significantly among scientific disciplines.^18---22 For biomedical journals, the first author is the most important position, followed by the last author and then the second author. The first author is reserved for the person who made the largest contribution (investing most time in the project) usually the author who wrote the first draft of the paper. Then the sequence of authors tends to represent progressively lessercontributions.¹⁸ Following thisapproach, where the sequence determines credit, the last author receives the least.Accordingly,thelastpositionmightbeconsideredas arathergenerousoption.Actually,thelastpositioniscur- rentlyconsideredasveryimportantinbiomedicalresearch and, in fact, it is frequently associated with the corresponding author or the guarantor of the entire work.¹⁸ However,manyarguethatseniorscientistsshouldgrabthe pen (keyboard) more often as writing remains essential for advancementin knowledge.¹⁹ Senior authors have the responsibilitytopromotetheacademiccareerofnewgen- erationscientists.

Many journals allow authors to declare that 2 or more individuals have made ‘‘equal contribution’’ to the research.^25---29Inthelastdecadethepercentageofarticles withequalcontributionstatementshasincreaseddramati- callybothinbasicandmedicalscientiﬁcjournals.²⁵Notably, the designation of ‘‘joint ﬁrst-authors’’ should be based on the quality and quantity of the work.^25---29 Thus the

‘‘contributed equally’’ designation should be reserved to honestlyreflect similarscientific contributionsand notto inflateacurriculumvitae.^25---29Interestingly,thepracticeof listingtwo individuals as ‘‘jointlast author’’ is usedless frequentbutsteadilyincreasing.Thesepublicationsshould include a foot note clearly indicating that both authors equallycontributedtothework.^25---29

The corresponding author takes primary responsibility forcommunicationwiththejournalduringthesubmission, peer-review,publicationandpost-publicationperiods.¹Cur- rently,mostjournalsrequirecontacte-mailaddressesfrom all listed authors who then will be contacted to inform that the corresponding author submitted the paper. This ensures thattheyareawarethatthepaperhasbeensub- mitted in their name. The systematic implementation of this electronic warning system paves the way to guar- antee that the 3^rd authorship criterion has been met.

Therefore, the policy now may be considered as a mere administrativerequirementsimilartosigningofacopyright transfer.

The‘‘guarantor’’ofthestudymaybedifferentfromthe ﬁrstorcorrespondingauthorandfrequentlyistheprincipal investigatorormoreseniorpersoninthegroup.Theguar- antortakesfullresponsibilityfortheintegrityofthework

asawholefrominceptiontothepublishedpaper.Accord- ingly,the guarantor must be fullyprepared todefend all partsof the researchproject and final manuscript. Guar- antors vouching for the integrity of the entire work are ofspecialvalueformulti-authorarticlesparticularlywhen manyinstitutionsareinvolved.Allauthorsshouldalsodis- closepotential conflictsof interest.^1,5 The ICMJE uniform conflictofinterestdisclosurehasbeenrecentlyupdatedand allauthorsshouldcompletethecorrespondingstandardized individualelectronicdocument.^1,5 Inparticular,authorsof sponsoredstudiesshouldindicatethattheyhadfullaccess tothedataandtake completeresponsibilityfor theaccu- racyandintegrityoftheanalysis.Thisisimportantasroles andinterestsofdifferentstakeholdersmayremainelusive ormisleadinginthistypeofstudy.¹

The subjectivity and emotionality of authorship may explainwhy disputesamong investigatorsare not uncom- mon.Authorshipdisputesamongstresearchteamsshouldbe avoidedbydecidingroles andresponsibilitiesbeforehand.

Ideally,theorderofauthorsshouldbecollectivelydecided bytheresearchteamat theonsetoftheproject.³⁰ Then, thedeﬁnitiveauthorordershouldberevisedwhenthework iscompleted,takingintoaccounttheactuallevelof indi- vidualcontributions.¹⁷Editorsareunabletojudgewhether authorshavemettheauthorshipcriteria.TheCOPE(Com- mittee on Publication Ethics; www.publicationethics.org) guidelinesare useful to solve publicationdisputes.⁹ Edit- orsshould seek explanations andsigned agreement of all authors in case of a request for a change in the author list.¹

Multi-authored articles

Scientificcollaborationhasbecome increasinglyimportant becausethecomplexityofmodernresearchinvolvesdiffer- entcompetencies.¹⁶ Moreover,a largenumber ofpatients and centresmay be required to adequately address clin- ically relevant questions.¹⁶ In addition, multidisciplinary researchgroupsoffertheopportunityofcross-pollination.¹⁶ Therefore,team-workiscurrentlycommonplaceinbiomed- ical research. Co-authorship is the most tangible result of multilateral scientific collaboration. Group (corporate) authorshiphasbecomeincreasinglycommonwithvariations in how individual authors and research group names are listed in the by-line. Notably, citation impact is greater in papers with multiple authors coming from international cooperation. The problem of inflating publication andcitation records of authors participating in multicen- ter studies has been a cause of concern.¹⁸ This is due, at least in part, to collaboration-induced self-citation.³¹ Salamipublications, or least publishable units strategies, areinitiatives that inflate the number of publications on the same research project by dividing the work (that could have been presented in a single main paper) into smaller component parts, then publishing them as sev- eraldifferentarticles.Suchstrategiesmaybedetectedin somemulticenter studies.³¹ The use ofcoauthor-adjusted citationindexes have been suggested to account for this phenomenon.³¹

There is evidence that the number of coauthors per paperinmedicalliteraturehasincreasedexponentiallyover

(6)

time.^22,32Thereasonforthisincreaseisprobablymultifac- torialand includes, increasing complexity of research, as discussed,but alsoauthorinﬂation. Inappropriateauthor- shipisnotethicalandeventuallyleadstodiminishthevalue of authorship, generating a situation where undeserved coauthorscannot take responsibility for the research.^22,32 Interestingly,thecorrelationbetweenresearchqualityand numberofauthorsis poor,suggesting thatthecomponent ofauthorinﬂationplaysagreaterrolethanthatofresearch complexity.³²

Until now the number of authors in the by-line was notconsidered inthe evaluationof therelativeacademic meritofindividualauthors.³However,asaresearchproject involvesadeﬁnedamountof work,thelargerthenumber ofauthors ina paperthesmaller themerit thatdeserves anygivenauthor.Majoreffortsaremade bysomeindivid- ualswhereasotherscontributesigniﬁcantlyless.Thecredit receivedbypeopledoingtheworkbecomesdilutedbythe inclusionofmanyauthorswithlittle,ifany,contributions.

Eventuallythis‘‘freelunch’’strategyunderminesthevalue ofbeingnamedonascientiﬁcpaper.³³

Authorship guidelines should be updated to adapt to the growing trend of collaborative research. The larger the number of authors the more opportunities for con- tentiousargumentsanddisputes.Everyauthorofa‘‘group authorship’’workmustmeetthe4criteriaforauthorship.

Otherwisetheyshouldbeidentifiedjustasinvestigatorsor collaborators rather than authors.¹ Given the complexity andmultiple tasks involved incurrent researchit is clear thatmostauthorscannotparticipateineveryaspectofthe work.Accordingly,specificresponsibilitiesshouldbetiedto differentresearch roles. Authors should refrain fromcol- laborating withcolleagues whose qualityor integritymay inspireconcerns.¹Last,butnotleast,withagrowingnum- berof authors it is increasingly difficult toidentify those whomaybeheldmorallyresponsibleshouldscientificmis- conductbedetected.^22,32 Holdingeverybodyresponsibleis unfairtotheresearchersthatarenotguiltyofmisconduct.

Breaches in Authorship: from ghost to guest authors

Breachesinauthorshipareaformofdeception.Guestorgift (honorary)andghost(hidden)authorsrepresentaformof authorshipabusethat shouldnotbepermitted.^34---39 Ghost authorship is omitting authors that have made relevant contributions to a paper. Ghost authors provide contrib- utionsto a manuscript that do merit authorship but, for differentreasons, are notincluded in theauthor by-line.

Some ghost authors may have major conflicts of interest or are paid by a commercial sponsor. This should be dif- ferentiatedfrom ghost writing. Ghost writers are writing contributors to a manuscript that do not fulfill authorship criteria, but their contributions are not disclosed in theacknowledgements.^17,38Ghostwritingisalsoanuneth- ical practice as it keeps hidden the involvement in the manuscript.Theconcernisthatwritershiredbytheindus- trymight influencethecontentof thepublicationorhide unwelcomeresults,whichintroducespotentialbiasthatis obscuredwhenrelevantacademicguestauthorsareaccred- itedwithauthorship.¹⁷ Professionalmedicalwritersshould

followethicalpublicationpracticesandshouldopenlydis- closetheirinvolvementintheacknowledgementsection.³⁸

The inclusion of individuals with minimal or no input reflects ‘‘loose authorship’’ practices.^34---39 Guest, gift or honorary authorship is defined as co-authorship awarded to people who do not meet the authorship criteria and have not contributedsubstantially totake public responsibility for the work.¹ This may be offered in the belief that the prestige of a scientifically respected person will increasethelikelihoodofpublicationor theimpactofthe work.³⁰ Oftentimes,awell-knownacademicseniornameis used to conceal ghost authors with industry-related con- flictsofinterest.³⁰Both,thegift-authorandtheremaining co-authorsmaybenefitfromthispractice(awin-winsitua- tion)that,nevertheless,remainsunethical. Theincreased pressure for publishing amongscholars seeking promotion andcareeradvancement(the‘‘publishor perish’’culture) may also help to explain these practices. This pressure explainswhysomeresearchersacceptthe‘gift’authorship in papers to which they have not contributed intellectu- ally. Thisabuse inauthorshipdevalues themeritof being namedasanauthorinascientificpaper.Aspreviouslydis- cussed,quantitativecontributionhelpstopreventgranting undeserved credits toguest authors who take away well- deserved credits from the authors who actually did the work.^39---42

Studies suggest that breaches of authorship guidelines are frequent. In a recent survey one-third of authors believed that they had been excluded from deserved authorship and a similar number declared that they had experienced pressures to include undeserved authors in theirpapers.²⁰Anotherrecentstudyofjournalsincludedin theJournalsCitationReportsdatabasesuggested that85%

ofthemincluded intheirpolicyguidancetherequirement that authors should beaccountable for the researchas a whole,32% explicitlyprohibitedguestor ghostauthorship but only 5% required authors todescribe their individual contributions.²⁵

Final remarks

Authorship confers credit but also involves responsibility.

Authorsshouldbeaccountable andvouchfortheintegrity of the entire work. The Editors’ Network of the ESC endorses the ICMJE recommendations on authorship and encouragesindividualNSCJtoadapttheireditorialpolicies accordingly.

Disclosures

NoneoftheEditorsauthorsofthispaperhaveanypotential conﬂictofinterestthatneedstobedisclosedinrelationto thismanuscript.

Conﬂicts of interest

Theauthorsdeclarenoconﬂictsofinterest.

(7)

Acknowledgements

We aregratefulfor thesupportand assistanceof Michael Alexander and Margot Bolard, from the ESC Publications Department,attheEuropeanHeartHouse.

References

1.The International Committee of Medical Journals Editors.

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and PublicationofScholarly Work inMedicalJournals. Available:

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations.

2.LüscherTF.Thecodexofscience:honesty,precision,andtruth- anditsviolations.EurHeartJ.2013;34:1018---23.

3.AlfonsoF,AmbrosioG,PintoFJ,EctorH,VardasP,Kulakowski P,TimmisA. Editors’NetworkESCTaskForceEuropeanSoci- etyofCardiologynationalcardiovascularjournals:the’Editors’

Network’.EurHeartJ.2010;31:26---8.

4.MillsP,TimmisA,HuberK,EctorH,LancellottiP,MasicI,Ivanusa M,Antoniades L, AschermannM, Laucevicius A, MustonenP, ArtigouJY,VardasP,Stefanadis C,ChiarelloM,BologneseL, AmbrosioG,vanderWallEE,KułakowskiP,PintoFJ,ApetreiE, OganovRG,KamenskyG,LüscherTF,LerchR,HaoualaH,San- soyV,ShumakovV,TajerCD,LauCP,MárquezM,Krittayaphong R,AraiK,AlfonsoF.TheroleofEuropeannationaljournalsin education.Heart.2009;95:e3.

5.Alfonso F, Timmis A, Pinto FJ, Ambrosio G, Ector H, Kulakowski P, Vardas P. Editors’ Network European Society of Cardiology Task Force Conﬂict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among European Societyof Cardiol- ogy National Cardiovascular Journals. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:

587---94.

6.AlfonsoF.DataSharing.Editors’NetworkEuropeanSocietyof CardiologyTaskForce; Editors’NetworkEuropean Societyof CardiologyTaskForce.EurHeartJ.2017;38:1361---3.

7.Council of Science Editors. White Paper on Publication Ethics. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scien- tiﬁcJournalPublications,2012UpdateAvailable:http://www.

CouncilScienceEditors.org.

8.World Association of Medical Editors. WAME Professionalism Code of Conduct. The new WAME Professionalism Code of Conductfor medical journal editors.Available:http://www.

wame.org.

9.CommitteeOnPublicationEthics.COPE.CodeofConductand BestPracticeGuidelinesforJournalEditors.Available:http://

publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

10.StephensonJ. ICMJE: Allauthors ofmedical Journalarticles have ‘‘responsibility to stand by the integrity ofthe entire work’’.JAMA.2013;310:1216.

11.Noauthorlisted. TheLancet. Authorship andaccountability.

Lancet.2013;382:744.

12.GoodmanNW.Surveyoffulﬁllmentofcriteriaforauthorshipin publishedmedicalresearch.BMJ.1994;309:1482.

13.RennieD,FlanaginA.Authorship!Authorship!Guests,ghosts, grafters,andthetwo-sidedcoin.JAMA.1994;271:469---71.

14.RennieD, YankV,EmanuelL. Whenauthorshipfails. Apro- posal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278:

579---85.

15.LeonelliS.Locatingethicsindatascience:responsibilityand accountabilityinglobalanddistributedknowledgeproduction systems.PhilosTransAMathPhysEngSci.2016;374.

16.Helgesson G, Eriksson S. Responsibility for scientiﬁc misconduct in collaborative papers. Med Health Care Philos.

2018;21:423---30.

17.StocksA, Simcoe D,ToroserD,DeToraL. Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medicalwritersinbiomedicalpublications.CurrMedResOpin.

2018;34:1163---8.

18.ClementTP.Authorshipmatrix: arationalapproach toquan- tifyindividualcontributionsandresponsibilitiesinmulti-author scientiﬁcarticles.SciEngEthics.2014;20:345---61.

19.FairbairnS,KellyL,MaharS,ProséeR.Authorship:anevolving concept.Editorial coordinators. HealthLearning, Research&

Practice,WolkersandKluber.

20.Nylenna M1, Fagerbakk F, Kierulf P. Authorship: attitudes and practiceamongNorwegianresearchers. BMCMedEthics.

2014;15:53.

21.HessCW,BrücknerC,KaiserT,MauronA,WahliW,WenzelUJ, SalathéM. Authorship inscientiﬁc publications: analysisand recommendations.SwissMedWkly.2015;145:w14108.

22.HwangSS,SongHH,BaikJH,JungSL,ParkSH,ChoiKH,etal.

Researcher contributionsand fulﬁllment ofICMJE authorship criteria:analysisofauthorcontributionlistsinresearcharti- cleswithmultipleauthorspublishedinradiology.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Radiology. 2003;226:

16---23.

23.Hoen WP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. What are the fac- tors determining authorship and the order of the authors’

names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijd- schriftvoorGeneeskunde(Dutch JournalofMedicine).JAMA.

1998;280:217---8.

24.Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelinesonauthorship?MedGenMed.2007;9:16.

25.ResnikDB,TylerAM,BlackJR,KisslingG.Authorshippoliciesof scientiﬁcjournals.JMedEthics.2016;42:199---202.

26.AkhabueE,LautenbachE.Equal’’contributionsandcredit:an emergingtrendinthecharacterizationofauthorship.AnnEpi- demiol.2010;20:868---71.

27.DotsonB.Equalcontributionsandcreditassignedtoauthorsin pharmacyjournals.AmJPharmEduc.2013;77:39.

28.LiZ,SunYM,WuFX,YangLQ,LuZJ,YuWF.Equalcontributions andcredit:anemergingtrendinthecharacterizationofauthor- shipinmajoranaesthesiajournalsduringa10-yrperiod.PLoS One.2013;8:e71430.

29.HessCW,BrücknerC,KaiserT,MauronA,WahliW,WenzelUJ, SalathéM. Authorship inscientiﬁc publications: analysisand recommendations.SwissMedWkly.2015;145:w14108.

30.Tarkang EE, Kweku M, Zotor FB. Publication Practices and ResponsibleAuthorship:AReviewArticle.JPublicHealthAfr.

2017;8:723.

31.Ioannidis JP. A generalized view of self-citation:direct, co- author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. J PsychosomRes.2015;78:7---11.

32.ChowDS1,HaR,Filippi CG.Increased ratesofauthorshipin radiologypublications:abibliometricanalysisof142,576arti- cles published worldwide by radiologists between 1991 and 2012.AJRAmJRoentgenol.2015;204:W52---7.

33.Shapiro DW, Wenger NS, Shapiro MF. The contributions of authorsto multiauthored biomedicalresearchpapers.JAMA.

1994;271:438---42.

34.FlanaginA,CareyLA,FontanarosaPB,PhillipsSG,PaceBP,Lund- bergGD,RennieD.Prevalenceofarticleswithhonoraryauthors and ghostauthors inpeer-reviewed medicaljournals.JAMA.

1998;280:222---4.

35.LaineC,MulrowCD.Exorcisingghostsandunwelcomeguests.

AnnInternMed.2005;143:611---2.

36.WislarJS,FlanaginA,FontanarosaPB,DeangelisCD:.Honorary andghostauthorshipinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals:across sectionalsurvey.BMJ.2011;343:d6128.

(8)

37.WislarJS1,FlanaginA,FontanarosaPB,DeangelisCD.Honorary andghostauthorshipinhighimpactbiomedicaljournals:across sectionalsurvey.BMJ.2011;343:d6128.

38.Stretton S.Systematic reviewonthe primary and secondary reportingoftheprevalenceofghostwritinginthemedicallit- erature.BMJOpen.2014;4:e004777.

39.SmithR.Let’ssimplyscrapauthorshipandmovetocontributor- ship.BMJ.2012;344:e157.

40.TilakG,PrasadV,JenaAB.AuthorshipInﬂationinMedicalPub- lications.Inquiry.2015;29:52.

41.JuyalD,ThawaniV,ThalediS,PrakashA.Thefruitsofauthor- ship.EducHealth(Abingdon).2014;27:217---20.

42.FanelliD.Whygrowingretractionsare (mostly)a goodsign.

PLoSMed.2013;10:e1001563.