What Is an Author?

Abstract

You would think that after thousands of years of published prose and poetry that we would be able to answer the question “What is an author?” without ambiguity and without decades of academic debate. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. Apparently, the privilege of medical authorship is being abused for a variety of reasons, including confusion, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines an author as “the writer of a literary work.” It goes on to expand that definition to include “one that originates or gives existence” as in the author of a rumor. 1. Because modern biomedical research is usually complex, often interdisciplinary, and frequently requires expensive laboratory facilities and funding, the simple dictionary definition of authorship has been stretched, often bent, and occasionally tortured. The resulting outcome has been a list of non-trivial problems and unintended consequences. In an effort to address the issue of journalistic credibility regarding authorship and ease some of the problems resulting from the inclusion as authors of unqualified colleagues (and even some who have not participated in the work or the writing), a variety of conferences, committees, and task forces have debated these issues and proposed a variety of solutions. Notable among these efforts are the work of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE/the Vancouver Group) who met in Canada in 1985, the Nottingham Conference (England, 1996), and the Berkeley Conference (California, 1998). Most recently, a group known as the Council of Science Editors (accessible on the Internet at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services) has formed a Task Force on Authorship in an effort to inform the scientific community as widely as possible on the nature of these issues. This Task Force is seeking input from all individuals, research sources, authors, and editorial groups to serve as an online forum for opinions on these subjects and for information that will be helpful in resolving some of these issues. So, what exactly is the problem? While this is clearly one of those areas that could generate an over-reaction or result in policies that are too restrictive, I think the situation has reached the point where it can no longer be ignored. As an editor, I have no desire to become a literary policeman. On the other hand, I feel a responsibility toward authors and readers to edit this journal with fairness and integrity and to do everything possible to ensure the believability of what is printed and sent to you each month. The current situation regarding authorship is problematic in many ways. Included on the list of problems we are encountering with our current system of creative self-designation of authorship are the following: 1. The system encourages “author inflation,” a progressive and sometimes egregious increase in the number of authors, thereby diluting the significance and decreasing the value of authorship. 2. Our system encourages the practice of “gift” authorship 2. which can promote a questionable quid pro quo relationship. 3. There is erosion of the integrity and credibility of the other contents of the journal. If authorship is fudged, what else is fudged? 4. Current policies encourage instances of co-author denial of responsibility when fraudulent or erroneous information is published. 5. Current policies encourage curriculum vitae inflation, which, over time, undermines the academic promotion and tenure process by falsely inferring a greater volume of academic productivity for a particular individual. 6. These policies encourage the practice of offering undeserved authorship as a ploy to gain access to academic resources and other advantages. 7. The absence of authorship requirements leads to exaggeration and misrepresentation of an individual's knowledge, creativity, and abilities when he or she is applying to funding agencies or potential employers. 8. Finally, without clear guidelines, the current authorship policies of many journals perpetuate a culture of ignoring these issues because “that's the way we've always done it.” If we can agree that these matters are important, then what is the solution or resolution of this condition? I think journal editors should insist that all authors are truly qualified to be listed as such. Others who have contributed to the work but are not qualified to be authors should be “acknowledged” at the end of the article. Eventually the definition of authorship should be standardized for all scientific journals, and authors should be educated regarding the proper rules of scientific publishing. Obviously this will not happen in the short-term, but until it does, we should encourage a transition in the direction of greater authorship credibility. We can accomplish this by editorial policies that insist on clarification of the nature of the contribution made by each “author” and by making this information available to our readers. Toward these two ends, The >Laryngoscope will clarify for our readers and others that authorship credit is based only on having made a substantial contribution to the published work by virtue of meeting all of the following three criteria: 1. Conception and design of project or analysis and interpretation of the data, 2. Drafting or critically revising the content of the manuscript submitted for publication, and 3. Giving final approval of the version to be published. All three criteria must be met for an individual to be listed as an author or co-author on a published paper. You will note that other criteria, which do not qualify an individual for “author status,” include the following: 1. Supplying funding or other resources, 2. Collecting data (only), 3. General supervision of the research group, and 4. Being departmental chair or division chief. To implement the process of clarifying the qualifications of authorship in The Laryngoscope and specifying the role of each author and co-author, we will view the year 2001 as a transition year. Beginning in January 2001 we will use a new Author's Copyright Form, which will include a requirement for verification of the qualification for authorship for each author and co-author. Our Instructions to Authors are being revised to state clearly our authorship policy. Those who have contributed to the work and supported the research endeavor but who fail to qualify for authorship will be recognized in the final paragraph of the manuscript under the heading “Acknowledgments.” This editorial is offered as a small step in the direction of increased journalistic integrity and in support of the credibility of our journal's content. We encourage other journals to take similar steps in the near future. We think that ultimately this will enhance the value of the important new scientific information that we are providing to our readers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.