Authorship of Research Publications
Charles Sturt University acknowledges and adopts the wording of the Joint Statement by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council and Universities Australia in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, Part A, Section 5, as follows:
Introduction
The outcomes of research may be disseminated in a variety of ways but enduring forms, such as journal articles, are particularly important and to be an author for such a form is meritorious. To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work and be able to take responsibility for at least that part of the work they contributed.
Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial contributions in a combination of:
- conception and design of the project
- analysis and interpretation of research data
- drafting significant parts of the work or critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation.
The right to authorship is not tied to position or profession and does not depend on whether the contribution was paid for or voluntary. It is not enough to have provided materials or routine technical support, or to have made the measurements on which the publication is based. Substantial intellectual involvement is required. A person who qualifies as an author must not be included or excluded as an author without their permission. This should be in writing, and include a brief description of their contribution to the work.
Sometimes the editor of a significant collective work or anthology has responsibilities analogous to those listed above for authorship and, in such cases, similar criteria apply to 'editor' as to 'author'. However, the term 'editor' should be applied only to a person who has played a significant role in the intellectual shaping of a publication.
Responsibilities of institutions
5.1 Have criteria for authorship
Institutions must have a policy on the criteria for authorship consistent with this Code, seeking to minimise disputes about authorship and helping to resolve them if they arise. (Please see below for CSU's policy.)
Where a work has several authors, one should be appointed executive author to record authorship and to manage communication about the work with the publisher.
Responsibilities of researchers
5.2 Follow policies on authorship
Researchers should adhere to the authorship criteria of this Code and their institution's policies.
5.3 Agree on authorship
Collaborating researchers should agree on authorship of a publication at an early stage in the research project and should review their decisions periodically.
5.4 Include all authors
Researchers must offer authorship to all people, including research trainees, who meet the criteria for authorship listed above. Those offered authorship must accept or decline in writing.
5.5 Do not allow unacceptable inclusions of authorship
Authorship should not be offered to those who do not meet the requirements set out above. For example, none of the following contributions, in and of themselves, justifies including a person as an author:
- being head of department, holding other positions of authority, or personal friendship with the authors
- providing a technical contribution but no other intellectual input to the project or publication
- providing routine assistance in some aspects of the project, the acquisition of funding or general supervision of the research team
- providing data that has already been published or materials obtained from third parties, but with no other intellectual input.
5.6 Acknowledge other contributions fairly
Researchers must ensure that all those who have contributed to the research, facilities or materials are properly acknowledged, such as research assistants and technical writers. Where individuals are to be named, their written consent must be obtained.
5.7 Extend the authorship policy to web-based publications
Authors of web-based publications must be able to take responsibility for the publication's content and must be clearly identified in the publication.
5.8 Maintain signed acknowledgments of authorship for all publications
The department of the executive or senior author must retain the written acknowledgment of authorship discussed above in the form of an original hand-written signature. Where it is not practical to obtain an original signature, it is acceptable to use faxed or emailed consent. This also applies to published conference abstracts and similar publications. If an author is deceased or cannot be contacted, the publication can proceed provided that there are no grounds to believe that this person would have objected to being included as an author.
(From Section 5, Part A: Principles and Practices to Encourage Responsible Research Conduct in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research issued by the National Health and Medical Research Councils, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia and published at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r39 )
CSU's Policy for Authorship
ALL researchers have a responsibility to accurately assign credit for contributions to a research publication or outcome.
What could be used to determine authorship?
The following three models may be used as a catalyst to promote discussion about determining the order of authors or the recognition of a researcher in the author list or as an acknowledgment. Clearly there will be disciplinary norms and differences.
A survey of 700 academics reported four criteria that should be considered when determining contribution to a publication. 1. Generation of the hypotheses and design. 2. Establishing the procedure and collecting data. 3 Analysing the data. 4 Writing the manuscript (Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, 1970).
Winston (1985) suggested the following should be considered when determining authorship:
- Conceptualising and refining the research ideas
- Literature search
- Creating the research design
- Instrument selection
- Instrument construction and design
- Selection of data analysis mechanisms
- Performing data analysis
- Interpretation of data analysis procedures
- First draft of manuscript
- Second draft of manuscript
- Editing Manuscript
Another way for determining authorship includes consideration of 1. Research design. 2 Intellectual content of the publication. 3. Writing the publication.
What process should be used to determine authorship inclusion and order?
A consensus decision-making process is most desirable. It is suggested that up-front written agreements be formulated, where possible and appropriate, so that all participants involved in a research project understand the authorship inclusions and order for publications emerging from the project. The order of authorship should reflect the different amounts of intellectual and scholarly input. The person who made the greatest intellectual and scholarly contribution should be listed as the principal author using the discipline standard (either first or last named author) and others listed in order of relative contributions. Those participants whose contribution does not warrant being listed as an author should be accorded an acknowledgment.
Research Students and Research Assistants
A research student should be the principal author of publications emerging from a thesis with supervisors where appropriate taking second author status. Second author status is obligatory if the supervisor/s designates the primary variables or makes interpretative contributions or provides the database; is a courtesy if the supervisor/s designates the general area or substantially contributes to design; and is not acceptable if the supervisor only provides encouragement, physical resources, financial support, critiques or editorial contributions (APA Ethics Committee, 1983). In the last case supervisors should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section. There are some circumstances where the supervisor may be the principal author but where this occurs it must be with the student's written approval. If research supervisors use contracts with their students it would appropriate to include a statement of authorship.
Where a research assistant is employed or works on a project that has been conceptualised, planned and funded on the basis of an application prepared by researchers then acknowledgment rather than co-authorship is the convention. Employment as a research assistant and completing tasks like preparing summaries of literature, collecting and typing data, analysing data using standard procedures and preparing drafts of reports or manuscripts are considered worthy of acknowledgment and not co-authorship. However, where a research assistant substantially adds new knowledge to the project, like developing and presenting a new model, analysing data in an innovative way or taking prime responsibility for writing a manuscript or report, then co-authorship may be appropriate and should be discussed.
Conciliation and arbitration of disputes and conflicts.
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) will be responsible for dealing with all disputes and conflicts in the first instance. The process will involve the DVC talking with all parties involved and if necessary taking advice from colleagues in other institutions. Should either party not be happy with the outcome they may make representation to the Research Management Committee. If the University's Research Code of Conduct has been contravened then the Academic Misconduct provisions in the Enterprise Agreement will be invoked.
References:
Spiegel, D., & Keith Spiegel, P. (1970). Assessment of publication credit: Ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 738-745.
Winston, R.B. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 515-518.
Americal Psychological Association Ethics Committee (1983, February 19). Authorship guidelines for dissertation supervision.