Authorship criteria / negative catalogue
Due to the differing practices and cultures in the various academic fields and communities, developing a universally valid and all-encompassing definition of authorship poses a considerable challenge.
For this reason, (interner Link) of the Code provides orientation on the question of authorship; this can and should be applied in all areas of research.
The negative catalogue of contributions below provides additional guidance. It contains aspects which are not sufficient in themselves to justify authorship:
Mere organisational responsibility for the acquisition of funding
Example:
If group leaders or heads of institutes are named as co-applicants in the proposal for a research project but are not subsequently involved in carrying out the project and writing the manuscript, the contribution would usually not be sufficient to justify authorship.
Case study:
A professor has acted as a co-applicant. Shortly after the project began, there was a rift and the professor left the institution. The other co-applicant and their group subsequently worked on the project for about five years, eventually publishing the article with the professor’s name mentioned in the acknowledgements for raising third-party funding and providing some patient data. The professor wanted to be listed as the last author, as originally planned, but could not prove that he had participated in or even enquired about the project in the five years after leaving. In this case, simply mentioning the professor in the acknowledgements would be in line with good research practice.
Provision of standard investigation materials
Example:
- This includes materials or equipment (e.g. laboratory materials and instrumentation) that are simply made available.
- It also includes explaining how to use a device, test or material, where there is otherwise no further substantive engagement in terms of implementing the research project.
Training of staff in standard methods
Example:
When researchers want to apply new methods, they first have to undergo the necessary training. Simply reading a description of the method will not always be sufficient since this is often very brief. What is more, methods are often adapted to the conditions of the laboratory in question. For this reason, methodological instruction is usually provided by colleagues who have already used the method frequently.
If methodological instruction is given (usually on a one-time basis) and the researcher then applies the method independently without the involvement of the person who provided the instruction, that person is not entitled to be named as an author.
Mere reading of the manuscript, without substantial contributions to its content
Example:
Researchers who read through a draft manuscript and provide critical suggestions for improvement do not necessarily or automatically become co-authors.
In the case of early career researchers, the question often arises as to whether a colleague, supervisor or group leader who has critically proofread and revised an article by an early career researcher should be listed as an author. An assessment must always be made on a case-by-case basis whether the contribution by the colleague, supervisor or group leader went beyond a one-time critical reading.
The answer to this question is once again closely linked to common practice within the discipline concerned. If a supervisor states that they should be listed as an author, for example, they should be asked to provide evidence of their contribution. It is also important to check whether the content of the article was changed substantially based on the critical comments.
Management of an institution or organisational unit in which the publication originated
Example:
This criterion for justifying authorship results from the fact that heads of institutes in some disciplines often state that they are responsible for all publications produced at “their institution”. For this reason, they wish to read and approve all manuscripts prior to submission – and be named as co-author. However, the rule that applies here once again is that a single reading does not establish authorship. If no genuine, verifiable academic contribution was made, that person cannot assume any responsibility for the specific content of the publication.
- Data collection assistance of a purely technical nature
- Support of a purely technical nature, e.g. only providing equipment, laboratory animals, etc.
- In general, the mere provision of data sets or existing research software