Honorary authorship and its various forms
(interner Link) of the DFG Code of Conduct states that researchers must have made “a genuine, identifiable contribution” in order to be named as an author of a research publication. By the same token, it emphasises that “honorary authorship where no such contribution was made is not permissible”. In addition, (interner Link) identifies “strict honesty in attributing one’s own contributions and those of others” – and therefore the correct attribution of publication contributions – as a general principle of good research practice.
Yet there are still numerous constellations in which individuals are granted authorship in disregard of these criteria. These scenarios are outlined below:
Coerced authorship
Researchers in senior positions sometimes claim authorship for themselves based solely on their leadership role. This contravenes the rules of good research practice as clearly set out in (interner Link): “A leadership or supervisory function does not itself constitute co-authorship.” Legitimate authors do not always add senior staff to the list of authors of their own accord; additions may also be made under pressure or at the insistence of those in authority. For this reason, this practice is referred to as “coerced authorship”. In some cases, individuals also exploit their role as a supervisor of an academic qualification project in order to force through honorary authorship. Such practices may be considered an abuse of a managerial, supervisory or mentoring position – something which is already prohibited under (interner Link).
Other positions (of power) – such as exclusive control over access to data, research materials or equipment – may also be used to impose honorary authorship. The so-called (interner Link) associated with (interner Link) provides helpful guidance in this context, outlining types of contributions that do not justify authorship in and of themselves. Whether or not the provision of data or materials warrants authorship, for example, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the conventions of the relevant discipline. It will depend on:
- the importance of the data collection or material acquisition to the research project in question,
- the level of scientific expertise required for this purpose,
- the extent to which it constitutes a genuine scholarly contribution to the publication, and
- the degree of further involvement in producing the content of the publication.
Gift authorship
In some cases, legitimate authors grant authorship to others as a personal favour even though the recipients do not meet the criteria for authorship. Such “gift authorship” is another form of honorary authorship. It is sometimes justified on the grounds that the recipients need a publication credit to improve their formal eligibility for a research position or academic appointment. This can potentially involve researchers at any stage of their career. In some instances, it can result in a form of reciprocal recognition in which the inappropriately credited individuals return the favour by naming the original authors in a subsequent publication – a practice which is in turn referred to as “mutual support authorship”. This practice likewise violates the principles of good research practice (GWP), since it allows researchers to gain an unfair advantage in performance evaluations based on apparent productivity and receive credit for scholarly content to which they have not contributed – or only marginally so.
Guest authorship
“Guest authorship” refers to the inclusion of a researcher’s name in the list of authors for the sole purpose of boosting a study’s credibility or increasing the chances of publication. This practice exploits the tendency for recognition of a publication’s content to be attributed primarily to the most prominent researchers among the listed authors – whose names are to effectively serve as a seal of approval for the scientific quality of the work. The “success” of such a practice indirectly points to weaknesses in the peer review process.
A particularly serious case arises when guest authors are named without their consent. Such action is unacceptable, as it misleads readers and exploits individuals by making them appear responsible for work they neither contributed to nor are aware of. This tactic is frequently employed by predatory journals, which claim to adhere to scientific quality standards but in reality circumvent them in pursuit of profit. So-called “paper mills” also resort to this unethical practice. In cases involving fabricated content, such conduct can even amount to criminal activity. Targeted individuals can respond not only by invoking good research practice but also by pursuing legal action.
Authorship for sale
Paper mills are also associated with other clear violations of the authorship rules of good research practice. As profit-driven organisations, they produce or sell articles that appear to be scientific but often contain questionable, falsified, or even entirely fabricated content. In this context, authorships are offered for sale (“authorship for sale”). Accepting such an offer constitutes a breach of established authorship conventions and of the general principles of good research practice.
Honorary authorship as an instance of scientific misconduct
The unauthorised or unjustified claiming or acceptance of authorship or co-authorship may be classified as scientific misconduct and may be subject to investigation and sanctions under the applicable rules of procedure.
This article is based on
Reeg, Nele (2022): »Autorschaften«, in: Wissenschaftliche Fairness. Wissenschaft zwischen Integrität und Fehlverhalten, Bielefeld: transcript, S. 171-175.
Sources
(externer Link) (in German only)
Bülow, William/Helgesson, Gert (2018): »Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands«, in: Research Ethics 14, S. 1–9.
Feeser, V. R./Simon, Jeremy R. (2008): »The ethical assignment of authorship in scientific publications: issues and guidelines«, in: Academic Emergency Medicine 15, S. 963–969.
Strange, Kevin (2008): »Authorship: why not just toss a coin?«, in: American Journal of Physiology – Cell Physiology 295, C567–75.
Biagioli, Mario (2019): »Plagiarizing Names?«, in: Trends in Chemistry 1, S. 3–5.
Hvistendahl, Mara (2013): »China’s publication bazaar«, in: Science 342, S. 1035–1039.