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/).
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.
© 2019 Sociedad Colombiana de Cardiolog´ıa y Cirug´ıa Cardiovascular. Published by Else- vier Espa˜na, S.L.U.This is an openaccess article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
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.
© 2019 Sociedad Colombiana de Cardiolog´ıa y Cirug´ıa Cardiovascular. Publicado por Else- vier Espa˜na, S.L.U.Este es un art´ıculoOpen Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://
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 world- wide,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 con- duct,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- tionsonauthorshipissuedbytheICMJE1,10,11withtheaimof providingfurthereditorialinsighttobeprogressivelyimple- mentedbytheNSCJ.
New authorship requirements
In August 2013 an important revision of the ICMJE rec- ommendations 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 require- ments 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 crite- rion 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 Editor1,10---14.
To better appraise this4th 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
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 mustreporttotheauthors´academicinstitutionand,even- tually,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’’ contri- bution, 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 depart- ment 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 indi- vidual 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 contribu- torship policies in their journals.1 As discussed, however, thequestionregardingthequalityandquantityofcontribu- tionrequiredtoqualifyanindividualforauthorshipremain unresolved.1 An interesting proposal in this regard sug- gests 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 repre- sents 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
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 corre- sponding 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 3rd 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 interna- tional 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
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 author- ship 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 respon- sibility 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.
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 mis- conduct in collaborative papers. Med Health Care Philos.
2018;21:423---30.
17.StocksA, Simcoe D,ToroserD,DeToraL. Substantial contri- bution 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.
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.