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

Written byThe Scientist
| 1 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
1:00
Share
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. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53170International Committee of Medical Journal Editors http://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? Login Here
Share
July Digest 2025
July 2025, Issue 1

What Causes an Earworm?

Memory-enhancing neural networks may also drive involuntary musical loops in the brain.

View this Issue
Screening 3D Brain Cell Cultures for Drug Discovery

Screening 3D Brain Cell Cultures for Drug Discovery

Explore synthetic DNA’s many applications in cancer research

Weaving the Fabric of Cancer Research with Synthetic DNA

Twist Bio 
Illustrated plasmids in bright fluorescent colors

Enhancing Elution of Plasmid DNA

cytiva logo
An illustration of green lentiviral particles.

Maximizing Lentivirus Recovery

cytiva logo

Products

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Sino Biological Sets New Industry Standard with ProPure Endotoxin-Free Proteins made in the USA

sartorius-logo

Introducing the iQue 5 HTS Platform: Empowering Scientists  with Unbeatable Speed and Flexibility for High Throughput Screening by Cytometry

parse_logo

Vanderbilt Selects Parse Biosciences GigaLab to Generate Atlas of Early Neutralizing Antibodies to Measles, Mumps, and Rubella

shiftbioscience

Shift Bioscience proposes improved ranking system for virtual cell models to accelerate gene target discovery