Skip to main content

How to resolve authorship disputes

We've had a great response so far debating the fairness of authorship rules. Give us your recommendations for how to change or improve the system of authorship by Wednesday, September 26 to help shape an upcoming feature in our Careers section

Brought to you byThe Scientist
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Judging from recent debacles over authorship of papers, such as occurred in the journal of Fertility and Sterility earlier this year when the omission of a coauthor led to accusations of plagiarism and the retraction of a prominent paper, authorship in science is not an issue to be taken lightly. Among the guidelines put forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, one states that authors should have made substantial intellectual contributions to a study, not have just provided oversight or funding for the project.Despite these clear guidelines, authorship disputes are common. How does your lab deal with these situations -- who should go on the author list and in what order? Tell us here.
When multidiscipline groups collaborate, the situation gets even more complicated. How does your lab manage author order when you collaborate with other labs both in your field and outside of your field?You've shared your opinions with us about whether the tenure process needs to change. Now help us shape an upcoming careers feature about authorship rules. Tell us your experiences here in a comment to this story, or email us at mail@the-scientist.com. Both good and bad, we want to hear what you have to say. Here are some other issues worth considering: What are some ways we can improve the system of deciding authorship? Should there be one standard that applies to all disciplines?Some have suggested making a contributions section on each paper a requirement for publication, what else can we do to alleviate unfairness in authorship or disputes over author order?Links within this article: A. McCook, "Controversial fertility paper retracted," The Scientist, April 27, 2007. https://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53170International Committee of Medical Journal Editors https://www.icmje.org/index.htmlMail to The Scientist mail@the-scientist.com
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member?
Add The Scientist as a preferred source on Google

Add The Scientist as a preferred Google source to see more of our trusted coverage.

Related articles background image
August 2026 Digest cover
August 2026

Epic Fail: Sea-Monkeys Sabotage Fieldwork

When Barry Hicks set out to photograph thrombolites, thousands of unexpected visitors photobombed his underwater images.

View this Issue
Improving rAAV Production for Viral Vector Manufacturing

Improving rAAV Production for Viral Vector Manufacturing

cytiva logo
Advancing Respiratory Immunity Through Tissue-Resident Memory T Cell Research

Advancing Respiratory Immunity Through Tissue-Resident Memory T Cell Research

Miltenyi
Scientist holding a clear 384-well PCR microplate in a laboratory

What Dictates PCR Success Before Amplification Begins?

Integra Logo
Overcoming Immunotherapy Resistance in Liver Cancer

Overcoming Immunotherapy Resistance in Liver Cancer

Axion Biosystems

Products

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Launches European Newsletter Campaign with Exclusive Welcome Gifts

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Launches SuperNuclease ® Pro with Free Trial Program

Sino Biological Logo

Sino Biological Launches Precisely Characterized Full-Length p-Tau217 Protein to Advance Next-Generation Alzheimer’s Biomarker Assay Development

A photo of a scientist placing the Resipher device on a 96-well plate.

Resipher: Continuous Live-Cell Mitochondrial Respiration Monitoring in 96-Well Plates

Lucid Scientific logo