Ghost Authorship and Authorship Disputes: A 2025 Guide for Ethical Research and Drug Development

Abstract

This guide provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a comprehensive framework for navigating the complex landscape of authorship. It covers the foundational definitions of ghost, guest, and gift authorship, explores proven methodological tools like the ICMJE criteria and CRediT for ethical attribution, offers practical strategies for resolving and preventing disputes, and outlines validation techniques to ensure compliance with the latest 2025 journal and institutional policies. The article synthesizes current best practices to uphold research integrity, protect careers, and maintain trust in scientific publication.

Understanding Authorship Misconduct: Definitions, Prevalence, and Impact on Scientific Integrity

Your Troubleshooting Guide to Unethical Authorship Practices

This guide helps researchers identify and avoid unethical authorship practices—ghost, gift, and guest authorship—that can undermine research integrity and lead to disputes.

Quick Definitions

Practice	Core Issue	Common Scenario
Ghost Authorship [1]	A person who made a substantial contribution is omitted from the author list.	A professional medical writer employed by a pharmaceutical company drafts a manuscript but is not listed as an author or acknowledged [2].
Gift Authorship [1] [3]	An individual who does not qualify for authorship is credited as a author.	A junior researcher lists their department head as an author as a gesture of gratitude for general supervision or to boost the manuscript's credibility, even though the head had no direct involvement in the research [1].
Guest Authorship [1] [3]	An influential individual is listed to boost the credibility of the study, despite a lack of substantial contribution.	A well-known professor is added to the author list to increase the perceived status of the publication and improve its chances of acceptance in a high-impact journal [1] [3].

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the core ethical problem with each practice?

The table below summarizes the primary ethical breaches and consequences for each practice [1] [2] [4].

Practice	Ethical Problem	Consequences
Ghost Authorship	• Deceives the research community about the true contributors.• Obscures conflicts of interest (e.g., industry involvement).• Withholds credit from those who deserve it.	• Misleads readers about the validity and credibility of research.• Can negatively affect patient care if biased data is presented as independent.• Violates accountability standards.
Gift & Guest Authorship	• Misrepresents the actual intellectual contributions to the work.• Dilutes the meaning of authorship and credit.• Unfairly skews academic credit and citation metrics.	• Makes it difficult to determine accountability for the research.• Can implicate non-contributors in cases of misconduct.• Damens the professional reputation of those involved.

How can I distinguish between a legitimate co-author and a gift/guest author?

A legitimate co-author must meet specific criteria for substantive contribution and accountability. The following diagram illustrates the logical pathway to determining legitimate authorship based on international guidelines like those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [3] [5].

What are the real-world scenarios where these practices typically occur?

Ghost Authorship Scenarios [1] [2]:

• Industry-Funded Clinical Trials: A pharmaceutical company sponsors a trial and hires a medical communication agency to write the manuscript. The company's employees or the medical writers who drafted the paper are not listed as authors, and the paper is published under the names of well-known academics to lend it credibility.
• Overcoming Publication Obstacles: A researcher with poor writing skills or limited time hires a professional scientific writer to draft or substantially edit the manuscript but does not credit them in the acknowledgments.

Gift Authorship Scenarios [1] [6]:

• Seniority-Based Inclusion: A junior researcher or PhD student includes their laboratory supervisor or head of department as an author, even if that senior person provided only high-level guidance or resources but no direct intellectual contribution to the research design, execution, or writing.
• Reciprocal Favors: A researcher includes a colleague as an author on their paper in return for the colleague including them on a future paper, or to maintain a good professional relationship, without a substantial contribution justifying it.

Guest Authorship Scenarios [1] [3]:

• Lending Credibility: An influential researcher in a field is added to the author list primarily to increase the manuscript's perceived status and improve its chances during journal review, despite minimal involvement.
• Coercive Inclusion: A principal investigator who secured the research funds insists that their name be included on all papers coming out of their laboratory, regardless of their direct intellectual input—a form of coercive authorship [1].

Our journal has put our manuscript on hold due to an authorship dispute. How can we resolve it?

Many journals, including those from Cell Press, will suspend the review process until the authors resolve the dispute among themselves or with the help of their institutions [5]. The following workflow outlines the recommended steps for resolution, moving from internal discussion to external escalation if necessary [7] [5].

What practical steps can my research team take to prevent authorship disputes?

Preventing disputes requires proactive planning and transparent communication.

1. Draft an Authorship Plan Early: Before the research begins, collaborators should discuss and agree upon expectations for authorship. This includes defining roles and establishing tentative author order based on projected contributions [5]. 2. Use a Contributor Taxonomy: Adopt a standardized taxonomy like CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to define specific contributions clearly (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft, funding acquisition) [1] [5]. Many journals now require this. 3. Formalize Authorship with a Checklist: Use a checklist to ensure all contributors understand their responsibilities. The following table serves as a foundational tool for teams.

Action Item	Completed	Notes
We have held an initial meeting to discuss anticipated contributions and authorship.
We have consulted the target journal's authorship guidelines and the ICMJE recommendations.
We have documented tentative author order and the rationale.
We have assigned roles using a taxonomy like CRediT.
We have agreed on a process for resolving disagreements.
We have confirmed that all listed authors meet all four ICMJE criteria.
We have compiled a list of non-author contributors for the acknowledgments section.

4. Acknowledge, Don't Gift: Use the Acknowledgments section to credit those who provided support that does not meet the bar for authorship. This can include a laboratory assistant who performed tests, a colleague who provided reagents, or a supervisor who gave general feedback [1]. Always obtain permission from those you plan to acknowledge [3].

Resource	Function & Purpose
ICMJE Guidelines [1] [5]	The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines provide the most widely recognized criteria for authorship in biomedical journals. They define the four core requirements for authorship.
CRediT Taxonomy [1] [5]	The Contributor Roles Taxonomy is a high-level taxonomy with 14 standardized roles (e.g., Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft). It helps to clarify and document specific contributions transparently.
COPE Resources [1] [5]	The Committee on Publication Ethics provides extensive resources, including flowcharts for handling authorship disputes and case studies. It supports journals, publishers, and researchers in maintaining ethical standards.
ORCID iD [4]	A persistent digital identifier that helps ensure that your work is correctly attributed to you, distinguishing you from other researchers with similar names.
Institutional Ombuds Office [7]	A confidential, independent, and informal resource within a university or research institution that can help mediate disputes, including those related to authorship.

Understanding the prevalence and nature of authorship misconduct is crucial for research integrity. Quantitative data helps contextualize the scale of the problem, while clear definitions aid in identification and prevention.

Key Definitions of Authorship Misconduct:

• Ghost Authorship: Occurs when an individual who has made a substantial contribution to the research or manuscript is omitted from the author list [1] [8] [4]. This is often done to conceal conflicts of interest, such as the involvement of pharmaceutical company employees [8].
• Gift/Guest Authorship: The practice of awarding authorship to individuals who have not made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work, often to leverage their seniority or reputation, or as a professional courtesy [1] [4]. Also known as honorary authorship [1].

Prevalence of Authorship Misconduct:

The table below summarizes key statistical findings on the prevalence of authorship misconduct from empirical studies.

Table 1: Statistical Prevalence of Authorship Misconduct

Study Context/Discipline	Type of Misconduct	Prevalence Rate	Notes
Public University in Ethiopia (2025 Survey) [9]	Any Form of Research Misconduct	37.7% of participants	Self-reported engagement in at least one form of misconduct.
	Authorship Misconduct	47.5% of participants	The most common form of self-reported misconduct.
	Fabrication & Falsification	40.6% of participants	Second most common form of self-reported misconduct.
Six Medical Journals (2008 Survey) [8]	Ghost Authorship	Present in ~10% of papers	Survey finding reported in a BMJ study.

Factors Associated with Misconduct: A 2025 cross-sectional survey identified that publication pressure was significantly associated with research misconduct, with those under pressure being 3.18 times more likely to engage in it [9]. Other contributing factors include the researcher's academic position and level of research experience, with junior researchers being more likely to report misbehavior [9].

Troubleshooting Guides & FAQs: Addressing Authorship Issues

This section provides direct, actionable guidance on preventing and resolving common authorship problems.

FAQ 1: How can we determine who qualifies as an author on our manuscript?

Answer: The most widely accepted standard is the four criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [10]. To qualify as an author, an individual must meet all of the following conditions:

• Substantial Contribution: Contribute substantially to the conception/design of the work OR the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
• Drafting and Revision: Participate in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
• Approval: Approve the final version of the manuscript to be published.
• Accountability: Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved [10].

Individuals who do not meet all these criteria but provided assistance (e.g., general supervision, writing assistance, technical support) should be listed in the Acknowledgments section with a description of their contribution [1] [10].

FAQ 2: Our research team is facing a co-authorship dispute. What steps should we take to resolve it professionally?

Answer: Follow this structured protocol to navigate disputes professionally [11]:

• Establish Clear Guidelines Early: At the outset of any collaboration, have an open discussion to define roles, responsibilities, and authorship order based on expected contributions. Document this agreement.
• Communicate Openly and Respectfully: If a dispute arises, initiate a calm, respectful dialogue focused on the work and the agreed-upon guidelines. Practice active listening to understand all perspectives.
• Seek Mediation or Arbitration: If direct communication fails, involve a neutral third party, such as a senior faculty member not involved in the project or an institutional ombudsperson, to mediate the discussion. As a last resort, formal arbitration may be considered for a binding decision.
• Consider Legal Options as a Last Resort: Legal action is lengthy, costly, and can damage professional relationships. It should only be considered if all other resolution avenues have been exhausted and significant intellectual property rights are at stake.
• Learn from the Experience and Establish a Plan: After resolution, reflect on the causes of the dispute and use this knowledge to create a more comprehensive collaboration plan for future projects.

FAQ 3: A colleague suggested we add our department chair as a co-author as a courtesy, even though their contribution was minimal. Is this acceptable?

Answer: No, this practice, known as gift or guest authorship, is considered unethical [1] [4]. Adding a senior investigator, department head, or other superior who did not make a substantial intellectual contribution to the work misrepresents the actual contributions and undermines research transparency [1]. While it may seem like a gesture of respect or a way to boost the paper's credibility, it dilutes the meaning of authorship and can hold the "gifted" individual accountable for work they were not deeply involved in [1] [4]. Contributions that do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section instead [1].

FAQ 4: What is the proper way to disclose the use of an AI tool or a professional medical writer?

Answer: Transparency is key. AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the work [10]. However, their use must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript, typically in the Methods or Acknowledgements section, specifying the tool and purpose (e.g., drafting, editing, translation) [10]. Similarly, professional medical writers or editors must be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section, and their affiliation or funding source should be disclosed [8]. For extensive writing support, some journals require a detailed description of the writer's contribution and who paid for their services [8].

Experimental Protocols for Studying Authorship Misconduct

To effectively study authorship misconduct, researchers employ specific methodological approaches. The following diagram and protocol outline a standard method for conducting a survey-based study in this field.

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for surveying authorship misconduct.

Detailed Methodology for a Cross-Sectional Survey on Authorship Misconduct [9]:

• Study Design: An institutional-based cross-sectional study.
• Population & Sampling: A random sample of researchers is selected from the target population (e.g., a university). A high response rate (e.g., 82%) is crucial for validity [9].
• Data Collection Tool: A self-administered, structured questionnaire. To ensure reliability and validity, the instrument can be adapted from questionnaires used in similar, previously published studies [9].
• Data Collection: The approved questionnaire is distributed to the randomly selected participants for self-completion.
• Data Analysis:
  • Descriptive Statistics: Calculate frequencies, percentages, and confidence intervals to describe the basic features of the data and determine the prevalence (magnitude) of different forms of misconduct [9].
  • Bivariate Analysis: Analyze crude associations between independent variables (e.g., career level, publication pressure) and the outcome (research misconduct).
  • Multivariable Logistic Regression: Perform regression analysis to identify factors independently associated with research misconduct after controlling for other variables. Results are reported as Adjusted Odds Ratios (AOR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) [9].
• Ethical Considerations: Ensure participant anonymity and confidentiality. The study protocol must be reviewed and approved by an institutional review board or ethics committee.

This table lists essential resources and tools for ensuring authorship integrity and conducting research on the topic.

Table 2: Essential Toolkit for Addressing Authorship Misconduct

Tool / Resource	Category	Function & Purpose
ICMJE Recommendations [10]	Guideline	Defines international standards for authorship criteria and ethical conduct in medical publication.
CRediT Taxonomy [1]	Contributor Role	Provides a high-level, standardized taxonomy of 14 roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing) to clarify contributions.
ORCID iD [4]	Author Identification	A persistent digital identifier that helps distinguish researchers and ensure their work is correctly attributed.
Structured Questionnaire [9]	Research Tool	A validated instrument for collecting self-reported data on the prevalence and factors associated with research misconduct.
Focus Group Discussions [12]	Research Tool	A qualitative method to gather in-depth perspectives from various stakeholders (students, faculty, staff) to inform guideline development.
Acknowledgments Section [1] [10]	Publication Mechanism	The appropriate place in a manuscript to recognize individuals and entities that contributed but do not qualify for authorship.
Author Contribution Statement [12] [10]	Publication Mechanism	A mandatory section in many journals where each author's specific contributions are detailed, promoting transparency.

FAQs on Authorship

What is the difference between ghost, guest, and gift authorship?

• Ghost Authorship occurs when an individual who has made a substantial contribution to the research or manuscript is not listed as an author. This often involves paid professional writers or researchers whose contributions are omitted from the byline and acknowledgments [1] [13].
• Guest Authorship involves listing an influential individual (e.g., a senior researcher or department head) as an author to boost the manuscript's credibility, despite their lack of substantial contribution to the research. This is sometimes a coercive practice where superiors insist on being included [1] [13].
• Gift Authorship is the practice of granting authorship to someone as a "gift," such as a colleague, junior researcher, or supervisor, as a favor or to maintain good relations, even if they do not meet the authorship criteria [1] [13].

Why are these practices considered unethical? Ghost, guest, and gift authorship are considered questionable research practices (QRPs) because they undermine transparency and accountability in science [1]. They lead to misattribution of credit, where individuals receive either too much or too little credit for the work performed. Furthermore, all listed authors are accountable for the published work; if problems arise, honorary authors could be held responsible for research they were not deeply involved with, while ghost authors avoid accountability [1] [13].

What are the potential consequences of misattributed authorship? Engaging in misattributed authorship can seriously damage a researcher's career and reputation [1]. For individuals, being omitted as an author (ghost authorship) can hinder career advancement, which often depends on publication records [1] [14]. At a broader level, these practices erode trust in scientific institutions and the research record. One study found that increased reports of gift authorship and ghost authorship were associated with lower levels of trust in research institutions [15]. Journals may reject manuscripts or even retract published papers if authorship disputes are discovered [5] [13].

How can I prevent authorship disputes in my research team? Prevention is the most effective strategy [13].

• Have Early Discussions: Before starting research, have a face-to-face meeting with all collaborators to discuss authorship expectations, including who will be an author and the intended order of authors [5] [13].
• Follow Established Guidelines: Adhere to authorship criteria from recognized bodies like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or your target journal [1] [13]. The ICMJE recommends four criteria for authorship, including substantial contributions, drafting or revising the work, final approval, and accountability [5] [13].
• Use Contributor Taxonomies: Employ a contributor role taxonomy, such as the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), to define and document each person's specific contributions clearly [1] [5] [13].
• Put It in Writing: Keep a record of the decisions made during authorship discussions [13].

What should I do if I am involved in an authorship dispute?

• Internal Resolution: The first step is to try to resolve the dispute directly with the co-authors involved [7] [5].
• Institutional Guidance: If internal resolution fails, contact the research administration at your institution (e.g., department chair, Dean) [15]. However, be aware that power imbalances can make this difficult, and institutional administrators may have limited authority over all team members, especially in multi-institutional collaborations [7] [15].
• Journal Policies: If the dispute involves a manuscript submitted to a journal, inform the handling editor. Journals like those from Cell Press will suspend the manuscript's processing until the authors resolve the dispute [5]. For post-publication disputes, a correction may be required [5].
• Alternative Dispute Resolution: Some researchers have proposed independent mediation or arbitration services to help resolve disputes, particularly when power differentials are large [7].

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: A colleague expects to be an author but did not contribute substantially.

• Solution: Use the acknowledgment section to recognize contributions that do not meet the bar for authorship. This can include providing materials, technical assistance, feedback, or proofreading [1] [13]. Frame the decision by referring to the journal's or your institution's formal authorship guidelines to make the conversation objective rather than personal.

Problem: A contributor was left off the author list (Ghost Author).

• Solution: If you realize a contributor was omitted before publication, immediately bring this to the attention of the corresponding author and all co-authors. Emphasize that ghost authorship is considered scientific misconduct by most journal editors and that its discovery could lead to the paper's rejection or retraction [13]. The author list must be modified to include all qualifying contributors, with their written approval [5].

Problem: Disagreement over the order of authors on the byline.

• Solution: Refer back to the initial authorship discussions and documented agreements. Author order should reflect the relative substantive contributions to the work [7]. Many fields follow the convention where the first author contributes the most, and the last author provides senior oversight [7]. If equal contribution was made, many journals allow for a note designating "co-first authors" or "co-senior authors" [7] [13].

Data on Authorship Misconduct and Trust

The following table summarizes quantitative data from a study on the association between misattributed authorship and trust in research institutions [15].

Metric	Finding
Association with Trust	Increased reporting of gift authorship, author displacement, and ghost authorship was associated with significantly lower trust scores in the institution's administration (P<0.001).
Impact of Clear Policies	Institutions that had made their authorship policies known were awarded the highest median trust scores (3.06 on a 1-4 scale).
Preferred Dispute Authority	Only 17.8% of respondents favored their own institution's administration as the best authority to honestly investigate an authorship dispute.

Tool / Resource	Function
ICMJE Guidelines	Provides widely recognized and authoritative criteria for determining who qualifies for authorship [1] [5] [13].
CRediT Taxonomy	A high-level taxonomy with 14 standardized roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing) to clarify individual contributions transparently [1] [5] [13].
COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)	Provides resources, case studies, and guidelines for handling complex publication ethics issues, including authorship disputes [5] [13].
Institutional Authorship Policy	An internal document that sets clear, field-specific expectations and procedures for assigning authorship, helping to prevent disputes [15] [13].
Authorship Agreement Form	A documented plan, signed by all collaborators, that outlines anticipated author order and contributions at the start of a project [13].

Experimental Protocol: Resolving an Authorship Dispute

This methodology outlines the steps recommended by journals and ethics bodies when an authorship dispute arises [7] [5] [13].

1. Initiate Internal Discussion

• Action: The concerned party should communicate their grievance in writing to the corresponding author and all other co-authors.
• Rationale: The first and preferred step is for the researchers to resolve the issue amongst themselves. This direct communication can often clarify misunderstandings.

2. Escalate to Institutional Administration

• Action: If internal discussion fails, the issue should be brought to the relevant institutional administrators (e.g., department chairs, deans) at the institution where the research was primarily conducted.
• Rationale: Institutions are often best positioned to investigate the circumstances surrounding the research and the dispute [15]. However, their authority may be limited in multi-institutional collaborations [7].

3. Engage Journal Editors

• Action: For manuscripts under consideration, the handling editor must be informed of the dispute. For published papers, the journal should be contacted.
• Rationale: Journals have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of their publication record. They will typically halt the peer-review process until the dispute is resolved and may require a formal correction for published articles [5].

4. Seek Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• Action: If other avenues fail, parties can seek mediation or arbitration from an independent body.
• Rationale: ADR provides a structured, neutral process for resolving disputes, which is particularly valuable when there are significant power imbalances between the parties involved [7].

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the diagram below.

Pathway for Determining Authorship

A clear, pre-established pathway for determining authorship can prevent many disputes. The following diagram outlines a logical workflow for deciding who should be listed as an author and who should be acknowledged, based on criteria from the ICMJE and other guidelines [1] [5] [13].

In the high-stakes laboratory of academic and industrial research, the "publish or perish" imperative creates a high-pressure environment where authorship disputes frequently erupt. These disputes function like system errors in complex equipment—they reveal underlying flaws in the research ecosystem's design and operation. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding these errors is not merely an academic exercise; it is crucial for maintaining research integrity, ensuring proper credit attribution, and preventing the waste of resources on disputes that can derail careers and projects. This technical support center frames authorship disputes within the broader thesis that they are predictable, preventable, and manageable system failures, often rooted in dysfunctional power dynamics and the corrosive effects of the "publish or perish" culture [7].

Diagnosing the Core Malfunction: Authorship Pathology and Prevalence

Authorship disputes often arise from a fundamental misalignment between established ethical guidelines and on-the-ground practices. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposes four criteria for authorship, which include substantial contributions to conception/design, drafting/revising the work, final approval, and accountability [16]. However, in practice, these criteria are often circumvented, leading to several common pathologies.

The table below classifies these aberrant authorship types, their definitions, and their estimated prevalence, which can be considered a key performance indicator of system health.

Table 1: Pathology of Authorship Types

Authorship Type	Definition	Prevalence
Genuine Author	An individual who meets all established criteria for authorship, including substantial contribution and accountability [17].	N/A (Ideal State)
Honorary/Guest Author	An individual listed as an author despite not making a qualifying contribution; often added due to seniority, to enhance credibility, or as a favor [17].	Very common (>50% of articles) [17]
Ghost Author	An individual who makes a substantial contribution (e.g., writing, analysis) but is not listed as an author, often to conceal industry involvement or conflicts of interest [8].	Common (20-50% of articles) [17]
Gold Author	A paid individual who authors a paper to overstate the merits of a product (e.g., a new drug) while ignoring its drawbacks [17].	Uncommon (5-20%) [17]

Quantitative data further illuminates the scale of the problem. A study of retracted articles found that 7.4% of retractions were due directly to authorship disputes [18]. Surveys suggest that between 30% to 66% of researchers have been involved in an authorship disagreement [7]. In medical fields, one study found 21% of articles had honorary authors and 8% had ghost authors [18]. These figures represent significant error rates that undermine system reliability.

System Analysis: The Root Cause of Failures

The 'Publish or Perish' Operating Pressure

The "publish or perish" culture creates an environment where publication volume and placement in high-impact journals become the primary metrics for career advancement, funding, and reputation [16]. This pressure distorts incentives, making authorship a commodity to be hoarded or traded rather than a credit to be earned. For junior researchers, publication is "everything," making them vulnerable to exploitation [16]. Simultaneously, senior researchers are under pressure to "maintain rank or move along the tenure track," which can tempt them to engage in or tolerate abusive authorship practices [16].

Power Dynamics and Circuit Design

Power differentials are a critical fault line. Senior researchers (PIs) often control resources, funding, and career trajectories, creating a system where they can dictate authorship credit [7]. This can lead to "proxy wars," where senior researchers with conflicting advice use a junior researcher as a battleground, leaving the junior researcher confused and intimidated [19]. In extreme cases, a PI may operate under the principle that "everything that was done in his division belonged to the director," leading to the exclusion of genuine contributors [17]. This power imbalance is a primary reason why informal dispute resolution often fails; the vulnerable party fears retaliation [7].

Protocol Ambiguity and Resource Contention

The absence of clear, universally adhered-to protocols for assigning authorship and order is a fundamental design flaw. While guidelines like ICMJE's exist, many researchers are ignorant of them or disagree with their provisions [7]. Furthermore, authorship is a limited resource; positions like first author and last author are particularly valuable for career advancement, creating intense competition [7]. In large, multi-institutional, and interdisciplinary collaborations—increasingly the norm in science—the lack of a pre-established contribution management protocol makes disputes almost inevitable [18].

Troubleshooting Guide: Resolving Authorship Disputes

When a authorship dispute error occurs, the following systematic troubleshooting protocol is recommended. The flowchart below visualizes the escalation path from informal to formal resolution mechanisms.

Step 1: Informal Resolution Efforts

The first and preferred step is always to attempt informal resolution. This involves:

• Facilitating Open Discussions and Documentation: Organize a team meeting with a clear agenda to discuss the disagreement [19]. The key is to get the conflicting parties, especially senior researchers, in a room to make it their shared problem to solve. It is critical to take clear notes during these discussions and distribute them afterwards to hold all attendees accountable to what has been agreed upon [19].
• Involving Impartial Mediators: If direct discussion fails, confide in a trusted third party [19]. This could be a senior person or colleague not involved in the project who can act as a neutral mediator. A tactful way to do this is to suggest inviting this person to help review the work and figure out where things might have gone wrong [19]. Their involvement can sometimes "shame the supervisor out of their position" without needing to escalate formally [19].

Step 2: Formal Adjudication Mechanisms

When informal efforts fail, and the dispute involves significant power imbalances or intractable positions, formal mechanisms must be initiated.

• Institutional Policies and Procedures: Universities and research institutions have formal policies for dispute resolution. A researcher can inform an institutional administrator, such as a department chair, Dean, or a dedicated research integrity officer [19] [7]. These bodies can review the case, gather evidence, and render a binding decision. However, their authority may be limited in multi-institutional collaborations [7].
• Journal Arbitration: For disputes arising after submission or publication, journals can act as arbiters. Because authors recognize journals' authority over manuscripts, journals are well-placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes, including mediation or arbitration [7]. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides guidelines for journals in these situations.

Step 3: The "Scorched Earth" Solution: Retraction

In the worst-case scenario, where a dispute cannot be resolved through any other means, the paper may be retracted. This is a "scorched earth" solution where nobody wins [7]. The authors lose credit, the readers lose access to potentially sound science, and the funders see no return on their investment. It is the ultimate system failure.

Research Reagent Solutions: Proactive System Safeguards

Just as a well-stocked lab has reagents to prevent experimental failure, the following tools are essential for preventing authorship disputes.

Table 2: Essential Materials for Preventing Authorship Disputes

Tool / Reagent	Function	Application Protocol
Team Authorship Policy	A pre-project agreement defining authorship criteria and order [20].	Draft and sign at the start of a collaboration. Discuss hypothetical scenarios and how they would be handled.
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)	A standardized list of 14 roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing) to clarify contributions [18].	Used when submitting the manuscript to provide a transparent, machine-readable record of who did what.
ICMJE Guidelines	The most widely recognized benchmark for defining a legitimate author [16].	Used as a reference point for developing team-specific policies and for training lab members.
Written Documentation	Records of meetings, email correspondence, and data management plans.	Serves as evidence of contributions and agreements if a dispute arises.
Institutional Ombudsman	A confidential, impartial, and informal resource for conflict resolution [19].	Consulted early when a researcher feels uncomfortable raising an issue through formal channels.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: A senior colleague demanded to be a co-author on my paper despite minimal contribution. What are my options? This is a classic case of attempted honorary authorship. Your first step should be to refer to your team's pre-established authorship policy or the journal's adopted guidelines (e.g., ICMJE) [16]. Politely explain that according to these criteria, their contribution may not qualify for authorship but could be acknowledged. If this is too difficult due to power dynamics, seek advice from a trusted senior mentor or your institution's ombudsman [19]. Involving an impartial mediator can help navigate this sensitive situation.

Q2: I discovered a "ghost author" from a pharmaceutical company was involved in a study I am referencing. How does this affect the research integrity? Ghost authorship, particularly when used to obscure industry ties, is a serious ethical breach [8]. It deceives the research community about the true origins and potential biases of the work, as the reader cannot properly assess conflicts of interest [8]. This practice may violate standards set by COPE and other bodies. When you encounter this, you should critically evaluate the paper's conclusions, check for undisclosed conflicts of interest, and consider the potential for biased data interpretation [8].

Q3: Our multi-institutional research team is deadlocked on authorship order. How can we break the impasse? When internal discussion fails, especially across institutions, formal mediation or arbitration is the recommended path [7]. Since no single institution may have authority over all parties, consider proposing the use of an independent third-party mediator agreed upon by all institutions. Journals, which have authority over the manuscript, can also be asked to facilitate an alternative dispute resolution process before the paper is accepted [7].

Q4: As a junior researcher, I feel my PI is unfairly excluding me from authorship. What can I do without damaging my career? This is a difficult situation due to the clear power imbalance. Start by gathering all evidence of your contribution (emails, lab notes, data files) [19]. If you have a supportive mentor outside the direct conflict, confide in them to explore options [19]. You can also approach your institution's research degree coordinator, postdoctoral officer, or human resources manager [19]. These offices are designed to help in such situations while aiming to protect vulnerable researchers.

Implementing Ethical Authorship: Frameworks, Tools, and Best Practices for Research Teams

Troubleshooting Guides

Troubleshooting Guide 1: Resolving Common Authorship Scenarios

This guide helps you diagnose and correct frequent issues in assigning authorship according to ICMJE criteria.

Observed Problem	Possible Causes (ICMJE Criterion Violation)	Recommended Corrective Action	Prevention Tips for Future Projects
Ghost Authorship: An individual made a substantial contribution but is omitted from the author list [1].	Failure to recognize a substantive intellectual contribution (Criterion 1); Often involves paid writers or researchers whose roles are not disclosed [1].	Include the contributor as an author if they meet all four criteria. If their role was limited (e.g., writing assistance only), acknowledge them in the Acknowledgments section with a description of their contribution [21] [1].	Discuss authorship expectations with all team members early in the project. Implement a transparency policy where all writing assistance is reported.
Gift/Guest Authorship: A person is listed as an author despite not meeting all ICMJE criteria [1].	Inclusion based on seniority, department head status, or to increase credibility without substantive intellectual contribution (Violates Criterion 1); The individual did not participate in drafting/revision (Criterion 2) or give final approval (Criterion 3) [22] [23].	Remove the individual from the author list. Acknowledge their non-substantive contribution (e.g., general supervision, administrative support, funding acquisition) in the Acknowledgments section [21] [23].	Establish clear authorship guidelines at the institutional level. Use a contributorship model to detail each author's specific role [24].
Author Displacement: An author is listed in a position that does not reflect their actual contribution [24].	Although not a direct violation of the four criteria, improper ordering undermines accountability and can be a form of misattribution [24].	The author group should collectively decide and justify the author order before manuscript submission. Revisit and confirm the order reflects relative contributions [21].	Decide authorship order early in the project as a team. Document the rationale for the order. Some journals allow a explanation of author order contributions.
Dispute over Criterion #2 or #3: A contributor who meets Criterion 1 is denied the opportunity to review the manuscript or give final approval.	Violation of the spirit of the criteria. The ICMJE states that all who meet the first criterion should have the chance to meet criteria 2 and 3 [21].	Ensure all qualifying contributors participate in the drafting/review process and approve the final version to be published. This is a non-negotiable requirement for authorship [21].	Circulate drafts to all potential authors in a timely manner. Obtain formal, written final approval from every author before submission.
Unclear Accountability: When questions arise about the work, it is unclear which author is responsible for specific parts.	Incomplete fulfillment of Criterion 4, which requires authors to be accountable for their work and to identify which co-author is responsible for other parts [21].	Authors must reconfirm their specific responsibilities and be able to identify which co-author is accountable for each component of the research [21].	Use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) model to define each author's role clearly during the manuscript preparation process [1].

Troubleshooting Guide 2: Addressing Modern Authorship Challenges

This guide addresses specific scenarios that arise in contemporary research environments, including the use of AI.

Scenario / Tool	Associated Risk	Application of ICMJE Criteria & Solution	Documentation Requirement
Large, Multi-Center Trials (Group Authorship)	Ambiguity in individual accountability; confe credit where it's due [22].	The group should decide who qualifies as an author before the work begins [21]. All listed group members must meet all four criteria [21]. The corresponding author must specify the group name and identify individual authors [21].	Clearly state the individual authors who take responsibility. The byline should list the group name with named individuals, or the individuals should be listed as writing on the group's behalf [21].
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools	Inability of AI to take responsibility; potential for incorrect or biased output; plagiarism [21].	AI tools cannot be authors [21]. Humans are solely responsible for any submitted material that includes AI-generated content [21]. Use of AI must be disclosed transparently.	For writing assistance: Describe the use in the Acknowledgments section [21]. For data collection, analysis, or figure generation: Describe the use in the Methods section [21].
Local Collaborators in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)	Exclusion of local researchers from authorship when data is from LMICs [21].	Failure to include qualified local investigators should prompt questioning and may be grounds for journal rejection. Inclusion adds fairness, context, and implications to the research [21].	Collaborate and offer co-authorship to colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted, provided they meet the four criteria [21].
Industry-Sponsored or Funded Research	Ghostwriting by company-hired writers; hidden conflicts of interest [1].	All individuals who meet the authorship criteria must be named, regardless of their institutional affiliation (e.g., industry representatives) [23]. The use of undisclosed "ghostwriters" is prohibited [23].	Disclose all financial support and relevant affiliations. Report and acknowledge the specific role of any professional writers or other contributors provided by the sponsor [1] [23].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: Our department head provided the funding and lab space but had no direct involvement in the research design, drafting, or approval. Should they be an author?

A: No. According to the ICMJE, acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, or general administrative support alone do not qualify an individual for authorship [21]. These contributions should be rightfully acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section [23].

Q2: A colleague provided a critical reagent that made our entire study possible. Do they deserve authorship?

A: Providing a reagent or material alone is not sufficient for authorship. This type of contribution should be acknowledged in the manuscript's Acknowledgments section rather than conferring authorship [21] [23].

Q3: Can we use a professional editing service to improve the language and clarity of our manuscript before submission?

A: Yes, but this must be transparently reported. If the service was limited to writing assistance, language editing, or proofreading, this does not qualify the editor for authorship. The service should be acknowledged, often with a statement like, "The authors thank [Company/Individual] for providing editorial/proofreading support" [1]. The use of AI-assisted technology for writing must also be disclosed in the acknowledgment section [21].

Q4: What should we do if a co-author refuses to give final approval for the manuscript version we all agreed upon?

A: This is a serious situation that prevents the manuscript from being submitted, as final approval is a mandatory ICMJE criterion [21]. The author group should first try to understand and resolve the co-author's concerns. If an agreement cannot be reached, the institution(s) where the work was performed should be asked to investigate the dispute [21].

Q5: Is the first author always the person who did the experiments and wrote the first draft?

A: While this is a common convention, the ICMJE does not prescribe a specific order. The criteria used to determine the author order are to be decided collectively by the author group [21]. It is the collective responsibility of the authors to determine a fair order that reflects the relative contributions.

Q6: Who is responsible for ensuring all authors meet the ICMJE criteria?

A: It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal editor [21]. The corresponding author often takes a lead role in ensuring administrative requirements are met, but all listed authors must individually and collectively ensure that everyone listed fulfills all four criteria [21].

Workflow Visualization

Research Reagent Solutions for Authorship Integrity

The following "reagents" are essential procedural tools for preventing authorship disputes and maintaining integrity in research publications.

Reagent / Tool	Function in Maintaining Authorship Integrity
ICMJE Authorship Criteria	The definitive standard for determining who qualifies for authorship. Serves as the foundational protocol for all authorship decisions [21].
Contributorship Model (e.g., CRediT)	A detailed taxonomy that allows for a precise description of each author's contribution (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, writing) [1]. This adds transparency and removes ambiguity.
Written Authorship Agreement	A document, created early in the project, that outlines expected author roles, responsibilities, and the anticipated order of authorship. This prevents future disputes [23].
Institutional Authorship Policy	A set of clear rules and guidance established by a research institution to govern authorship practices. This fosters a culture of integrity and provides a framework for dispute resolution [24].
Acknowledgments Section	The designated area in a manuscript to recognize individuals and organizations that contributed to the research but do not qualify for authorship, ensuring they receive appropriate credit [21] [23].

Leveraging the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) System for Transparent Contribution Statements

The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is a standardized, controlled vocabulary of 14 roles that capture the range of contributions typically made to scholarly research outputs. Developed to address the limitations of traditional author lists, CRediT provides a transparent framework for specifying "who did what" in a research project [25] [26]. This technical support center provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with comprehensive guidance for implementing CRediT to mitigate authorship disputes and enhance research integrity.

The fundamental problem CRediT addresses is the inability of simple author lists to represent the diversity of researcher contributions to published work [25]. This shortcoming has led to several challenging issues in research publication, including authorship disputes, the inability to recognize early career researcher contributions, "ghost authorship" where contributors are not acknowledged, and "guest authorship" where individuals are listed despite minimal contributions [25] [27]. In drug development research, where multidisciplinary teams collaborate on complex projects, these challenges are particularly pronounced.

CRediT was developed following a 2012 workshop hosted by the Wellcome Trust and Harvard University that brought together researchers, research institutions, publishers, and funders [25] [26]. The taxonomy was formally introduced in 2015 and became an ANSI/NISO standard in 2022, ensuring its stability and widespread adoption [26]. It is now used by over 50 major publishers and thousands of journals worldwide [26].

CRediT Technical Support Center

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the primary purpose of the CRediT taxonomy? CRediT aims to provide transparency in contributions to scholarly published work, enabling improved systems of attribution, credit, and accountability [28]. It offers authors the opportunity to share an accurate and detailed description of their diverse contributions to the published work [29].

Q2: Does using CRediT determine who qualifies for authorship? No. CRediT is not intended to determine who qualifies as an author [30]. Each author may have one or more CRediT roles, but having a role does not automatically qualify someone as an author. Authorship is still determined according to journal guidelines which are often based on ICMJE requirements [30].

Q3: Who is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of CRediT statements? The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the contribution descriptions are accurate and agreed upon by all authors [29]. This responsibility includes verifying that all authors have approved the CRediT statement before submission.

Q4: Can one contributor have multiple CRediT roles? Yes. Authors may have contributed in multiple roles, and the taxonomy allows for assigning multiple contribution types to a single individual [29]. For example, a researcher might have contributed to Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing - original draft.

Q5: Where and when should CRediT statements be provided? CRediT statements should be provided during the submission process and typically appear above the acknowledgment section of the published paper [29]. Many publishers now incorporate CRediT directly into their submission systems.

Q6: How does CRediT help address ghost authorship? By requiring transparent documentation of all contributions, CRediT helps reveal individuals who have made substantive contributions but might otherwise not be acknowledged, thereby reducing the potential for ghost authorship [27]. This is particularly valuable in drug development research where multiple stakeholders are involved.

Q7: Are there standardized templates available for creating CRediT statements? Yes. Standardized templates are available in various formats including standard contribution statements, detailed contribution statements, journal-specific formats, and institutional formats [31]. These ensure consistency, accuracy, and compliance with CRediT taxonomy standards.

Troubleshooting Common CRediT Implementation Issues

Problem: Disagreement Among Collaborators About Role Assignments Issue: Team members have different interpretations of their contributions and deserve different CRediT roles.

Solution:

• Initiate early discussions about contributor roles at the project planning stage
• Use the official CRediT definitions as a neutral reference point [29] [30]
• Document proposed contributions in a collaboration agreement
• If disputes arise, refer to journal policies or seek mediation from institutional research offices
• Remember that multiple contributors can be assigned the same role (e.g., multiple investigators)

Problem: Uncertainty About Distinction Between Similar Roles Issue: Confusion about differences between closely related roles, particularly Methodology vs. Investigation, or Validation vs. Formal analysis.

Solution: Consult the official definitions:

• Methodology: "Development or design of methodology; creation of models" [29]
• Investigation: "Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection" [29]
• Formal analysis: "Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data" [29]
• Validation: "Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs" [29]

Problem: Journal Has Specific CRediT Requirements Issue: Target journal has unique formatting or implementation requirements for CRediT statements.

Solution:

• Check author guidelines before submission
• Use journal-specific templates when available [31]
• Contact the journal's help desk for clarification
• Consult the CASRAI website for journal-specific implementation guides [31] [32]

Problem: Technical Issues With Submission System Issue: The journal's online submission system doesn't properly accept or display CRediT information.

Solution:

• Ensure you're using the latest browser version
• Contact the journal's technical support team
• Provide the CRediT statement in both the designated fields and as a separate file if necessary
• For persistent issues, consult the CRediT Help Desk [32]

CRediT Taxonomy: Roles, Definitions, and Experimental Context

The 14 CRediT Roles and Their Applications

Table 1: Complete CRediT Taxonomy with Definitions and Experimental Applications

CRediT Role	Definition	Application in Experimental Research
Conceptualization	Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims	Formulating research hypothesis, defining scientific questions, establishing experimental framework
Methodology	Development or design of methodology; creation of models	Designing experimental protocols, establishing procedures, creating theoretical models
Software	Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of code	Developing data analysis scripts, creating specialized analysis tools, programming simulations
Validation	Verification of replication/reproducibility of results/experiments	Repeating key experiments, verifying analytical methods, confirming results robustness
Formal Analysis	Application of statistical, mathematical, computational techniques to analyze study data	Performing statistical tests, computational analysis, mathematical modeling of data
Investigation	Conducting research investigation; performing experiments; data/evidence collection	Conducting laboratory experiments, collecting field data, performing clinical observations
Resources	Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, instrumentation	Providing cell lines, chemical compounds, patient samples, specialized equipment
Data Curation	Management activities to annotate, scrub data; maintain research data	Data cleaning, annotation, metadata creation, database management, curation for reuse
Writing - Original Draft	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing initial draft	Drafting manuscript sections, preparing initial figures, substantive translation
Writing - Review & Editing	Critical review, commentary or revision by those from original research group	Revising manuscript content, providing critical feedback, editing for clarity and accuracy
Visualization	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation	Creating figures, diagrams, data visualizations, graphical abstracts
Supervision	Oversight and leadership responsibility for research activity planning and execution	Providing research direction, mentoring team members, ensuring research quality
Project Administration	Management and coordination responsibility for research activity planning and execution	Coordinating collaborations, managing timelines, ensuring regulatory compliance
Funding Acquisition	Acquisition of financial support for project leading to publication	Securing research grants, obtaining institutional funding, identifying funding sources

Quantitative Analysis of CRediT Implementation

Recent research has analyzed patterns of CRediT implementation across disciplines. A 2024 study examining over 700,000 articles published between 2017-2024 in Elsevier and PLOS journals revealed significant disciplinary differences in contribution patterns [33].

Table 2: Disciplinary Patterns in CRediT Implementation (Based on Analysis of 700,000+ Articles)

Disciplinary Area	Most Frequent Contribution Roles	Notable Implementation Patterns
Health Sciences	Investigation, Methodology, Formal Analysis	High prevalence of Writing - Review & Editing across all authors
Life Sciences	Investigation, Methodology, Validation	Strong supervision patterns with clear leadership roles
Physical Sciences	Software, Formal Analysis, Visualization	High incidence of multiple roles per contributor
Social Sciences	Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Data Curation	Significant software development contributions
Multidisciplinary	Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization	Balanced distribution across most contribution types

Experimental Protocols for Contribution Documentation

Protocol 1: Establishing Contribution Management Plans

Purpose: To preemptively address potential authorship disputes by establishing clear contribution expectations at project inception.

Materials Needed:

• CRediT role definitions [29] [30]
• Collaboration agreement template
• Project management tools

Procedure:

• Initial Team Meeting: Discuss potential contributions using CRediT taxonomy as framework
• Draft Contribution Plan: Assign anticipated roles to each team member
• Document Agreement: Formalize understanding in collaboration agreement
• Periodic Review: Revisit contribution allocations at project milestones
• Final Verification: Confirm actual contributions before manuscript submission

Expected Outcomes: Reduced authorship disputes, clear expectations, documented agreement for reference in case of disagreements.

Protocol 2: Implementing CRediT in Multi-Center Trials

Purpose: To standardize contribution tracking across multiple research sites in complex drug development studies.

Materials Needed:

• Standardized CRediT data collection form
• Centralized database for contribution tracking
• Communication platform for distributed teams

Procedure:

• Template Distribution: Provide CRediT definitions and collection forms to all site investigators
• Centralized Coordination: Designate corresponding author as contribution coordinator
• Regular Updates: Collect contribution information at regular intervals throughout study
• Verification Process: Confirm contributions with each contributor before manuscript submission
• Statement Generation: Compile final CRediT statement for inclusion in manuscript

Expected Outcomes: Consistent attribution across distributed teams, comprehensive contribution capture, reduced ghost authorship in multi-center trials.

Visualization of CRediT Implementation Workflow

CRediT Implementation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the sequential process for implementing CRediT throughout a research project, from initial planning to final submission.

Research Reagent Solutions for Contribution Documentation

Table 3: Essential Resources for Implementing CRediT in Research Projects

Resource/Solution	Function	Source/Availability
Standard CRediT Template	Provides consistent format for creating contribution statements	CASRAI website [31]
Journal-Specific Templates	Ensures compliance with particular journal requirements	Publisher author guidelines [31]
CRediT Help Desk Support	Provides direct assistance with implementation questions	CASRAI Support Center [32]
Interactive CRediT Explorer	Allows users to explore all 14 contributor roles in detail	CASRAI website [26]
Implementation Guides	Tailored resources for institutions, publishers, and researchers	CASRAI knowledge base [32]
Contribution Management Tools	Digital platforms for tracking contributions throughout projects	Various commercial and open-source solutions
CRediT Statement Validator	Checks statements for completeness and compliance	JATS4R recommendation tools [28]

The CRediT taxonomy represents a significant advancement in research transparency by providing a standardized framework for acknowledging diverse contributions to scholarly work. For drug development professionals and researchers working in complex, multidisciplinary teams, systematic implementation of CRediT can substantially reduce authorship disputes, minimize ghost authorship, and ensure proper recognition for all contributors. The troubleshooting guides, experimental protocols, and resources provided in this technical support center offer practical solutions for integrating CRediT into research workflows, ultimately supporting research integrity and equitable attribution practices.

Why is a collaborative authorship plan necessary?

Authorship plans are crucial because authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications, but it also implies responsibility and accountability for the published work [34]. Without a clear plan, teams are more susceptible to disputes, which are often rooted in deeper issues of misconduct and mistrust, and can be exacerbated by institutional pressures to publish [24]. A proactive plan ensures that all contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions are given credit as authors and understand their responsibilities [34].

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

General Principles

Q1: What is the definition of authorship? According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an author is someone who meets all four of the following criteria [34]:

• Substantial contributions to the conception/design, data acquisition/analysis/interpretation; AND
• Drafting or critically revising the work for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Q2: What is ghost authorship and honorary authorship?

• Ghost Authorship: Occurs when an individual who has made a substantial contribution (e.g., a researcher or writer) is omitted from the author list. This is unethical as it withholds credit and can be used to obscure conflicts of interest [6].
• Honorary/Guest Authorship: Occurs when an individual (often a senior researcher) is listed as an author without having provided a significant contribution to the study. This dilutes the credit deserved by the actual contributors [6].

Q3: Who is responsible for determining authorship? It is the collective responsibility of the authors—not the journal or publisher—to determine that all individuals named as authors meet the agreed-upon criteria. Journals generally will not investigate or arbitrate authorship disputes [34] [35].

Planning and Setup

Q4: When should we start discussing the authorship plan? At the very outset of a research project. Ideally, the team should decide on authorship guidelines when planning the work and confirm this before manuscript submission [34] [36].

Q5: What should a written authorship agreement include? A written agreement helps prevent misunderstandings. It should outline [37] [36]:

• The criteria for authorship (e.g., based on ICMJE guidelines).
• The anticipated roles and responsibilities of each contributor.
• The rationale and method for determining the order of authors.
• The process for managing changes to the author list.
• A plan for documenting contributions (see Contribution Matrix below).

Q6: How do we handle authorship in multi-disciplinary collaborations? Different disciplines have varying authorship norms (e.g., order of authors, contribution expectations). It is critical to have open discussions about these differences early on to align expectations and agree on a common standard for the project [37] [36].

Implementation and Tracking

Q7: How can we track contributions fairly? Using a contribution matrix is an effective way to track and quantify each team member's input throughout the project. This provides an objective record to inform authorship discussions [37].

Table: Author Contribution Matrix Template

Team Member	Conception	Design	Execution	Analysis	Interpretation	Drafting	Critical Revision
Researcher A
Statistician B
Data Analyst C

Q8: What is the role of the Corresponding Author? The Corresponding Author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal and ensures that all administrative tasks are completed. This includes [35]:

• Ensuring all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission.
• Managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors.
• Ensuring that disclosures, declarations, and data statements are included correctly.

Troubleshooting: Resolving Disputes and Making Changes

Q9: What is the process for resolving an authorship dispute? If a dispute arises, address it constructively [37] [36]:

• Listen to concerns from all parties involved.
• Refer to the initial written agreement and contribution records.
• If internal resolution fails, seek informal, impartial guidance from a research governance or ethics office.
• As a last resort, the issue may be referred for a formal institutional review, which could involve an investigation into research misconduct.

Q10: Can we add or remove an author after the manuscript is submitted? Any change to the author list after submission requires the approval of every author. Journals typically require a signed statement of agreement from all listed authors and the author to be removed or added. Changes are generally not permitted after manuscript acceptance [34] [35].

Q11: How should we handle contributors who do not qualify for authorship? Individuals who do not meet all authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgements section with their specific contributions described (e.g., "provided technical editing," "collected data," "acquired funding") [34]. Remember to obtain written permission from acknowledged individuals [34].

Q12: What is the policy on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools? AI tools (like LLMs) cannot be listed as authors [34]. Any use of AI-assisted technology for writing assistance, data analysis, or figure generation must be explicitly disclosed in the manuscript, typically in the methods or acknowledgement section. Authors are solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the content, including any parts generated by AI [34].

---

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol 1: Creating a Collaborative Authorship Plan

This protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for establishing a robust and dispute-free authorship plan for a research project.

1. Initial Team Meeting (Project Inception)

• Objective: Align the entire team on authorship expectations.
• Methods: Convene a meeting with all key stakeholders (PIs, co-investigators, statisticians, researchers, etc.) [37]. Discuss and agree upon:
  • Which authorship criteria (e.g., ICMJE) will be used [34].
  • The expected contributions required for authorship.
  • The conventions for author order in your field [36].
  • The identity and responsibilities of the corresponding author [35].

2. Drafting the Written Agreement

• Objective: Create a formal record of the decisions made.
• Methods: A written document should be created and circulated. It must include [37]:
  • The specific authorship criteria.
  • A preliminary contributor roles and responsibility matrix.
  • The agreed-upon process for determining author order.
  • A protocol for handling changes in contribution or authorship.

3. Implementation and Ongoing Monitoring

• Objective: Ensure the plan remains relevant as the project evolves.
• Methods:
  • Maintain the Contribution Matrix: Regularly update the matrix (see Table above) as the project progresses [37].
  • Schedule Check-in Meetings: Periodically revisit the authorship agreement during project meetings to confirm it still reflects reality and make adjustments as needed [36].
  • Pre-Submission Verification: Before manuscript submission, confirm that every listed author meets all criteria and has approved the final version [35].

The following workflow diagram visualizes this multi-stage protocol for creating a collaborative authorship plan:

Protocol 2: Authorship Dispute Resolution Pathway

This protocol outlines a systematic approach to resolving authorship disputes, from informal discussion to formal escalation.

1. Informal Resolution

• Objective: Resolve the conflict at the lowest level.
• Methods:
  • The involved parties should meet to discuss the concern, focusing on the facts and the initial authorship agreement [37] [36].
  • The goal is to find a fair and reasonable solution through direct negotiation.

2. Facilitated Mediation

• Objective: Achieve resolution with impartial guidance.
• Methods: If informal talks fail, involve an impartial third party, such as a mediator or the institution's Research Governance office [37] [36]. The mediator facilitates discussion to help parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

3. Formal Institutional Review

• Objective: A final adjudication for unresolvable disputes.
• Methods:
  • The dispute is referred for a formal review, which may involve heads of school, research directors, or the PVC for Research [36].
  • This process may trigger an investigation into research misconduct and can lead to binding decisions [24] [36].

The sequence diagram below illustrates the formal dispute resolution process:

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key "reagents" for conducting a successful collaboration, focusing on documentation and agreement tools rather than laboratory supplies.

Table: Essential Tools for a Collaborative Authorship Plan

Tool	Function	Key Features / Components
ICMJE Authorship Criteria	Provides the definitive, internationally recognized standard for qualifying as an author.	Serves as the benchmark for all authorship discussions. The four criteria ensure substantive contribution, intellectual input, approval, and accountability [34].
Written Authorship Agreement	A living document that formalizes the team's decisions and serves as a reference point.	Should outline authorship criteria, roles, author order rationale, and a change-management process [37].
Contribution Matrix	An objective tracking tool to document and quantify each member's input throughout the project lifecycle.	A table (e.g., with rows for team members and columns for project phases) that is updated regularly to provide a clear record of contributions [37].
Institutional Policy Documents	Guidance and official procedures provided by the researchers' host institution(s).	Defines the local definition of authorship, outlines processes for dispute resolution, and provides contacts for research ethics and governance support [36].
Authorship Verification Software	Tools used to confirm the originality of written work and detect potential ghostwriting.	Uses stylometry (writing style analysis) to compare a submitted document against a researcher's previous work, helping to identify undisclosed contributors [38].
4-iodo-N-(4-methyl-1-naphthyl)benzamide	4-iodo-N-(4-methyl-1-naphthyl)benzamide	4-iodo-N-(4-methyl-1-naphthyl)benzamide is a high-purity benzamide derivative for research use only (RUO). It is not for human or veterinary diagnosis or therapeutic use.
GY1-22	GY1-22|DNAJA1-mutP53 Inhibitor|326903-84-8	GY1-22 is a small molecule inhibitor that targets the DNAJA1-mutP53R175H interaction, for cancer research. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.

Why is properly acknowledging contributors important?

Properly acknowledging individuals who do not meet the full criteria for authorship is a critical practice in ethical research publishing. It ensures transparency, fairly recognizes all contributions to a research project, and helps maintain the integrity of the authorship process by clearly distinguishing between authors and other contributors [1] [39].

Failing to properly acknowledge contributors, or inappropriately including non-authors in the author list (known as gift, guest, or ghost authorship), distorts the true record of contributions, misleads readers and reviewers, and can unfairly impact researchers' careers [1] [40]. Most scientific journals, including Science and Nature, endorse the practice of using the acknowledgments section for this purpose [1].

Who qualifies for acknowledgment versus authorship?

Authorship Criteria

According to widely accepted guidelines, such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an author must meet all of the following criteria [39] [40]:

• Make substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Draft the work or review it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Give final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Acknowledgments Criteria

Contributors who do not meet all of the above criteria should not be listed as authors. Instead, their efforts should be recognized in the acknowledgments section [39]. The following table summarizes activities that typically warrant acknowledgment rather than authorship.

Table 1: Contributions for Acknowledgments vs. Authorship

Category	Examples of Contributions that Belong in Acknowledgments	Rationale
Financial & Administrative	Acquisition of funding; General supervision of a research group; General administrative support [39] [40].	While vital, these activities alone do not constitute a substantive intellectual contribution to the work itself.
Technical & Support Services	Technical assistance in data collection or providing materials without intellectual contribution; Writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading [1] [39].	These are supportive roles that do not typically involve the core intellectual work of designing the study or interpreting the data.
Advisory & Feedback	A supervisor or senior researcher who provided valuable feedback or general guidance; A colleague who provided specific, non-core help (e.g., with illustrations) [1].	Valuable feedback alone does not reach the threshold of "critical revision for important intellectual content" required for authorship.

How should I write an effective acknowledgments section?

An effective acknowledgments section is clear, specific, and concise.

• Be Specific: Clearly state the contribution of each person or group. Avoid vague language [1].
• Use Simple Statements: Directly describe what each person or entity did.
• Follow Journal Guidelines: Always check your target journal's "Instructions for Authors" for any specific requirements regarding the acknowledgments section [1].

Examples of effective acknowledgment statements:

• "The authors thank [Full Name] of [Company/Institution] for providing editorial and proofreading support." [1]
• "The authors are grateful to [Full Name] for their valuable comments on improving this manuscript." [1]
• "The authors disclose support for the research of this work from Funder and Funder [Y]." [1]
• "We acknowledge [Full Name] for their technical assistance with the laboratory experiments."

What is the step-by-step process for determining acknowledgments?

The following workflow provides a visual guide for deciding who to include as an author and who to acknowledge. This process should be discussed collaboratively by the research team.

Diagram 1: Authorship vs. Acknowledgment Workflow

How can I proactively avoid disputes over authorship and acknowledgments?

Many disputes can be prevented through early and clear communication. Research teams should adopt the following proactive strategies [39] [40]:

• Develop a Written Agreement: At the start of a collaboration, create a written "Authorship Agreement" that outlines the criteria for authorship, the criteria for acknowledgment, and the planned order of authors. This document should be made available to all collaborators.
• Hold Regular Reviews: Discuss authorship and contributions throughout the project, not just at the end. Roles and contributions can change, and the plan should be revisited whenever significant changes occur.
• Clarify the Role of the Corresponding Author: The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all potential authors are contacted, have the opportunity to review the manuscript, and give final approval [39].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Authorship and Acknowledgment

Table 2: Key Resources for Determining Authorship

Resource Name	Type	Function/Benefit
ICMJE Guidelines	Guideline	Provides the most widely accepted set of four criteria for determining authorship [39] [40].
CRediT Taxonomy	Framework	A high-level taxonomy with 14 standardized roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing) to clarify specific contributions [1].
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)	Organization	Provides resources and guidelines on handling authorship disputes and other publication ethics issues [1] [40].
Institutional RIO	Institutional Resource	The Research Integrity Officer can provide guidance on institutional policies and dispute resolution processes [39] [40].
Written Authorship Agreement	Document	A living document created by the research team to preemptively define authorship expectations and avoid future conflicts [40].

Resolving and Preventing Authorship Disputes: Mediation, Power Imbalances, and Proactive Strategies

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the difference between ghost and guest authorship? Ghost authorship occurs when an individual who made a substantial contribution to the research or manuscript is not listed as an author [6] [1]. Conversely, guest authorship (also known as gift or honorary authorship) involves listing an individual as an author who did not make a significant intellectual contribution, often as a courtesy or to increase the paper's perceived credibility [6] [41] [1].

• What are the established criteria for authorship? Widely accepted criteria, such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), require that an author must meet all of the following conditions [42] [43] [40]:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation.
  • Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
  • Final approval of the version to be published.
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

• How can I prevent authorship disputes in my research team? Prevention is the most effective strategy [44] [40]. Key steps include:

  • Initiating early discussions about authorship, roles, and expectations before the project begins.
  • Creating a written authorship agreement that documents the expected contributions and authorship order, and revisiting this document as the project evolves [44] [40].
  • Using contributor taxonomies, such as the CRediT model, to objectively define and record specific contributions [42] [1].

• What is the first step if a dispute arises? The first recommended step is to attempt internal resolution through open dialogue among all contributors [40]. If power imbalances exist or an agreement cannot be reached, junior researchers should discuss the issue with a supervisor, mentor, or an impartial third party from within the institution, such as a department head [40].

• When should formal mediation or arbitration be considered? Formal processes like mediation or arbitration should be pursued when internal resolution fails [7] [40]. This is typically recommended when disputes escalate to the department head or dean level and remain unresolved [40]. Journals are also well-placed to facilitate these alternative dispute resolution processes [7].

Troubleshooting Guide: A Roadmap for Dispute Resolution

Follow this structured pathway to navigate an authorship dispute.

Understanding the Core Concepts

What Constitutes Authorship?

Applying formal criteria helps to objectively assess who qualifies as an author. The flowchart below outlines the decision process based on the ICMJE guidelines.

Defining Unethical Authorship Practices

The table below summarizes the primary unethical authorship practices to avoid.

Practice	Definition	Why It's Problematic
Ghost Authorship [6] [1]	A contributor who made a substantial contribution is omitted from the author list.	Fails to give credit where it is due and can obscure conflicts of interest, such as the involvement of pharmaceutical company employees [6] [1].
Guest / Gift Authorship [6] [41] [1]	An individual is listed as an author despite not making a significant intellectual contribution (e.g., a senior researcher or head of department).	Dilutes the credit for those who did the actual work and can mislead readers about the origins of the work [6] [1].
Coercive Authorship [43] [1]	A form of guest authorship where a senior researcher uses their position of power to demand authorship credit they do not deserve.	An abuse of power that exploits junior researchers and perpetuates an unethical research culture [43].

Equip your team with these essential tools and resources to proactively manage authorship and prevent disputes.

Tool/Resource	Function & Purpose
Written Authorship Agreement [44] [40]	A living document, created at the project's start, that outlines expected contributions, authorship criteria, and author order. Serves as a primary reference to prevent misunderstandings.
CRediT Taxonomy [42]	A high-level contributor roles taxonomy with 14 standardized contribution roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing). Enables transparent, granular description of each author's specific input.
ICMJE & COPE Guidelines [42] [43]	Authoritative, externally-defined criteria for authorship and ethical publishing. Provides a neutral, standards-based foundation for team discussions and decisions.
Institutional Research Integrity Officer [40]	A university official who can provide confidential guidance on navigating authorship disputes and institutional policies.
Acknowledgements Section [42] [1]	The appropriate place to recognize contributions that do not meet the formal bar for authorship (e.g., technical assistance, general supervision, writing support).

Escalation Pathways and Formal Processes

When informal resolution fails, a structured escalation pathway is critical. The following table details the processes outlined in the troubleshooting guide.

Stage	Process Description	Key Considerations
Internal Mediation [40]	Involves a supervisor, lab head, or an impartial institutional colleague to facilitate discussion.	This step is crucial for addressing power imbalances and providing a safe space for trainees to voice concerns [7].
Department-Level Mediation [40]	The dispute is presented to the Ombuds, Department Head, or Associate Dean for Research for formal mediation.	Issues involving students should always include the Dean of Students [40].
College-Level Review [40]	If unresolved, the issue is escalated to the Dean of the College(s).	This step may involve reviewing adherence to faculty or student codes of conduct [40].
Formal Mediation/Arbitration [7]	An independent third party or a journal-facilitated process is engaged to make a binding or non-binding decision.	Journals are well-placed for this role as authors recognize their authority; this can prevent the "scorched earth" outcome of a paper retraction [7].

Prevalence and Impact of Authorship Disputes

Understanding the scope of the problem highlights the importance of established resolution protocols.

Metric	Key Statistic or Finding	Implication
Prevalence of Disagreements	Between a third to two-thirds of researchers have been involved in an authorship disagreement [7].	Disputes are not rare anomalies but a common feature of the collaborative research landscape.
Contribution to Retractions	Authorship disputes contribute to 7.4% of paper retractions [7].	Unresolved disputes can lead to severe outcomes, nullifying the public benefit of the research.
Power Dynamics	Senior faculty are most likely to be bullies, and power differentials make internal resolution unlikely in many cases [7].	Vulnerable team members (e.g., students, early-career researchers) are disproportionately affected and need institutional protection [7] [43].

Technical Support Center: Authorship Ethics

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the minimum criteria someone must meet to be listed as an author on a manuscript?

According to internationally recognized guidelines from organizations like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an author must meet all of the following four criteria [45]:

• Substantial contributions to the conception/design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
• Final approval of the version to be published.
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity are properly investigated and resolved.

Providing reagents, routine technical services, or only supervising a team without making a direct intellectual contribution does not qualify an individual for authorship, though they may warrant acknowledgment [45].

Q2: What is ghost authorship and why is it considered problematic?

Ghost authorship occurs when an individual who made substantial contributions to the research or writing of a manuscript is intentionally not named as an author [46] [45]. This is often done to conceal the involvement of professional writers employed by pharmaceutical companies or to simplify the author list. It is considered unethical because it violates transparency, fails to assign accountability for the work, and denies individuals credit for their intellectual contributions [46] [45].

Q3: What should I do if a senior researcher demands to be an author on my paper without having contributed to the work?

This practice is known as gift authorship and is unethical [46] [45]. To protect yourself and address this situation:

• Refer to Institutional Guidelines: Use your university's or journal's published authorship criteria (like the ICMJE guidelines above) as a neutral, third-party standard to open a conversation [45].
• Communicate Early and Openly: Ideally, authorship expectations and contributions should be discussed and documented among collaborators at the start of a project [45].
• Seek Advice: Consult with a trusted mentor, your department chair, or an ombudsperson. They can provide guidance and mediate the discussion.
• Document Contributions: Maintain a record of all team members' specific contributions to the research and manuscript preparation. This provides objective evidence to support authorship decisions.

Q4: How should we determine the order of authors on a publication?

While conventions vary by field, the following is a common standard [45]:

• First Author: The researcher who contributed most substantially to the work, often leading the experimentation, data analysis, and initial drafting of the manuscript.
• Middle Authors: Listed in descending order of their contribution.
• Senior/Last Author: The principal investigator or project leader who provided the conceptual guidance, funding, and resources, and is ultimately accountable for the research integrity. It is crucial to have an open discussion about author order early in the research process to manage expectations [45].

Troubleshooting Guide: Authorship Disputes

Problem Symptom	Possible Cause	Recommended Resolution Steps
A colleague listed as an author cannot describe the core findings of the paper or their own contribution.	Gift Authorship: The individual was included as a courtesy, for their seniority, or to increase the paper's credibility, without having made a substantive intellectual contribution [46].	1. Private Discussion: Discuss authorship criteria with the lead author or PI. 2. Present Evidence: Refer to documented contributions or institutional guidelines. 3. Formal Mediation: If unresolved, seek mediation from a department head or ethics committee [45].
You discover a professional medical writer was heavily involved in drafting the manuscript but is not acknowledged.	Ghost Authorship: The writer's contribution was deliberately concealed, often to present the work as solely originating from the academic or clinical authors [46].	1. Review Journal Policy: Check the submission guidelines; many require disclosure of medical writing assistance. 2. Request Correction: Contact the corresponding author to request a formal acknowledgment in the manuscript. 3. Escalate if Needed: Report ethical concerns to the journal editor or the authors' institutions if the issue is not addressed.
Disagreement arises over who should be first author or the order of co-authors.	Unclear or changing contributions; lack of an initial authorship agreement.	1. Revisit Contribution Log: Refer to any previously documented agreements on tasks and authorship. 2. Objective Assessment: Have all contributors explicitly list their specific, substantive contributions to the work. 3. Consensus Building: Facilitate a meeting to discuss contributions and reach a consensus-based order, deferring to field-specific norms [45].

Experimental Protocol: Quantifying Author Contributions

Objective: To establish a transparent, documented record of individual contributions to a research project to prevent future disputes and ensure fair credit.

Methodology:

• Initial Project Meeting:

  • At the start of the collaboration, hold a meeting to discuss and define the roles and responsibilities for the project.
  • Draft a tentative authorship plan, including expected order, based on projected contributions.
  • Agree on a standard for contribution documentation (e.g., a shared spreadsheet based on the CRediT taxonomy).

• Ongoing Contribution Tracking:

  • Maintain a log of specific tasks and intellectual inputs from each team member. The table below outlines common categories to document:

Table: Research Contribution Categories for Documentation

Contribution Category	Specific Examples	Function / Purpose
Conceptualization	Formulating the research question or hypothesis; designing the study framework.	Provides the intellectual foundation and direction for the entire project.
Methodology	Designing experimental protocols; developing software or code for analysis.	Ensures the research is conducted in a rigorous, reproducible, and valid manner.
Investigation	Performing laboratory experiments; conducting clinical trials; collecting data.	Generates the primary data and results that form the core of the research findings.
Data Analysis	Applying statistical models; curating and visualizing data; validating results.	Transforms raw data into interpretable evidence that supports the paper's conclusions.
Writing & Drafting	Preparing the initial manuscript draft; writing specific sections (e.g., Methods).	Communicates the research process and findings in a structured, scholarly format.

• Pre-Submission Authorship Review:
  • Prior to manuscript submission, reconvene the team to review the documented contributions.
  • Finalize the author list and order based on the actual, recorded contributions against the predefined authorship criteria.
  • Have all authors formally approve the final manuscript and agree to their listed status [45].

Visualizing the Path to Ethical Authorship

The following diagram outlines the logical workflow and key decision points for establishing fair authorship practices, from initial planning to dispute resolution.

Table: Key Resources for Ensuring Fair Credit and Research Integrity

Resource / Tool	Function / Purpose
ICMJE Authorship Guidelines	Provides the most widely accepted set of four criteria for determining who qualifies for authorship [45].
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)	A high-level taxonomy of 14 standardized roles to accurately capture each contributor's specific activities (e.g., Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing) [45].
Institutional Authorship Policies	University or research institute-specific guidelines and procedures for addressing authorship disputes and ethical concerns [45].
FAIR Principles for Research Software (FAIR4RS)	A set of guiding principles to make research software Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable, aiding in transparency and credit for software contributions [47].
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)	An international resource providing guidelines and advice on all aspects of publication ethics, including complex authorship disputes [46].

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is the core difference between a Corresponding Author and a Senior Author? The Corresponding Author is primarily responsible for all manuscript-related communication with the journal and readers before and after publication. The Senior Author (or Principal Investigator) is the individual who provides the overarching intellectual direction for the research program, secures funding, and bears ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the work. While often the same person, these roles can be distinct.

Q2: Can a PhD student be the Corresponding Author? Yes, a PhD student can be the Corresponding Author. This is increasingly encouraged as it provides valuable experience in managing the peer-review process. However, the student must be prepared to handle all correspondence professionally and in a timely manner, and institutional or journal-specific policies should be checked.

Q3: How should we determine the order of co-first authors? When two or more authors have contributed equally to the work, they can be designated as co-first authors. The best practice is to:

• Agree on this designation early in the writing process.
• Include a note in the author contributions section stating their equal contribution.
• Use a symbol (e.g., †) in the byline to indicate the shared first authorship.
• State the order of names was determined alphabetically or by mutual agreement. Some journals also allow this information to be included in a footnote.

Q4: What should we do if an authorship dispute arises mid-project? Address it immediately and professionally. The first step is to refer to the initial authorship agreement. If one does not exist, convene a meeting with all involved parties and the Principal Investigator or department head to discuss contributions against established criteria like the CRediT taxonomy. The goal is to reach a consensus based on documented contributions, not seniority.

Q5: Is the laboratory head or Principal Investigator always the Senior Author? By convention, often yes. However, the Senior Author is defined by their substantial intellectual contribution to the conception, design, and interpretation of the research, not solely by their position. In rare cases, a senior researcher who originated the project may be the Senior Author, even if they are not the current lab head.

---

Troubleshooting Common Authorship Issues

Problem	Symptom	Solution
Unclear Contributions	Disagreements during manuscript drafting about who deserves authorship or their placement.	Mandate the use of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework before writing begins. Have each contributor self-report their roles (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing) to create an objective basis for discussion.
Ghost Authorship	An individual who made a substantial contribution (e.g., a medical writer or former lab member) is omitted from the author list.	Establish a transparent policy that any individual who meets the ICMJE authorship criteria must be offered authorship. All named authors must approve the final manuscript. Acknowledgment is appropriate for those who do not meet full criteria.
Disputed First Authorship	Two researchers both believe their work qualifies them for the first-author position.	Early in the project, define what specific achievements warrant first authorship. If contributions are truly equal, formally designate them as co-first authors with a journal-compliant note in the manuscript. The name order can be decided by mutual agreement or alphabetically.
Disengaged Corresponding Author	Slow or unprofessional responses to journal inquiries, delaying publication.	Before submission, ensure the Corresponding Author understands and accepts the responsibilities. Designate a backup correspondent. All authors should be copied on all correspondence with the journal to maintain transparency.

---

Quantitative Data on Authorship

Table 1: Corresponding Author Responsibilities

Responsibility	Frequency	Details
Manuscript Submission	One-time	Prepares manuscript to meet journal guidelines, submits via online portal, and confirms receipt.
Correspondence with Editor	Ongoing throughout review	Acknowledges receipt, responds to reviewer comments, submits revisions, and handles requests for clarification.
Communication with Readers	Post-publication	Responds to inquiries about methodologies, data, and requests for reagents or collaboration.
Administrative Tasks	One-time & Ongoing	Handles publication fees, forms (e.g., authorship declarations, ethics), and ensures data archiving.

Table 2: Core ICMJE authorship Criteria

Criterion	Description	Evidence
Substantial Contributions	Conception/design of work; OR acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data.	Protocol development, experimental execution, data analysis, intellectual input.
Drafting/Revising	Actively writing or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.	Writing sections, providing critical feedback that alters the manuscript's content or conclusions.
Final Approval	Approval of the final version to be published.	Signed authorship form or electronic approval as required by the journal.
Accountability	Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.	Willingness to answer questions about the work's accuracy or integrity.

---

Experimental Protocol: Establishing Author Order via CRediT

Objective: To objectively determine author order and contributions for a scientific manuscript, minimizing potential disputes.

Materials:

• List of all potential contributors
• CRediT taxonomy wheel or list
• Digital survey tool (e.g., Google Forms, Qualtrics)
• Draft manuscript outline

Methodology:

• Initial Meeting (Project Initiation): Convene all research team members. Discuss and agree upon the potential for authorship and the general principles for author order based on projected contributions.
• CRediT Survey Distribution (Post-Data Collection): After data collection and analysis are complete, distribute a digital survey to all potential contributors. The survey should list the 14 CRediT roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft).
• Self-Reporting: Each team member independently selects the roles they substantially performed. They may also nominate others for roles they believe were critical.
• Data Compilation & Meeting: The Principal Investigator compiles the anonymous results. A meeting is held to discuss the findings, resolve any discrepancies, and reach a consensus on who qualifies for authorship based on the ICMJE criteria.
• Role Assignment & Order Determination: Based on the CRediT data, the team agrees on the author list order. The first author is typically the individual with the most substantial contribution to the execution, analysis, and writing. The corresponding and senior author roles are confirmed.
• Documentation: The final CRediT contributions are documented and included in the manuscript submission.

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function
CRediT Taxonomy	A high-level, standardized framework for classifying author contributions into 14 distinct roles. Replaces vague descriptions with specific, transparent information.
ICMJE Recommendations	The definitive, field-agnostic guidelines defining who qualifies for authorship. Serves as the gold standard for resolving disputes about inclusion on the author list.
Authorship Agreement Template	A living document, drafted at the project's start, that outlines anticipated author order, roles, and responsibilities. Manages expectations and prevents later conflicts.
DALL-E / AI Image Generator	Used for creating graphical abstracts or summarizing complex pathways. Critical Note: Its use must be declared in the acknowledgments section, and all generated content must be verified for scientific accuracy.
1-(2,3-Diphenylacryloyl)piperidine	1-(2,3-Diphenylacryloyl)piperidine
ATG12-ATG3 inhibitor 1	ATG12-ATG3 inhibitor 1, MF:C18H17NO3S, MW:327.4 g/mol

---

Authorship Contribution Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for determining authorship and contributions, from initial contribution to final approval.

Author Contribution Decision Tree

This diagram visualizes the decision-making process for assigning author roles and order based on project contributions, from initial input to final approval. It integrates the ICMJE criteria and CRediT taxonomy into a clear, actionable pathway.

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, maintaining research integrity is paramount. Inappropriate authorship practices, such as ghost authorship (omitting individuals who made significant contributions) and guest/gift authorship (including individuals who did not), undermine credibility and public trust [48] [49]. These practices are concerningly prevalent, with studies indicating ghost authorship affects 5-10% of publications, and gift or honorary authorship can affect 20-60% [49]. This technical support center provides actionable checklists, templates, and FAQs to proactively integrate ethical authorship and conflict-of-interest management into your research workflow.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Resolving Suspected Ghost or Guest Authorship in a Manuscript

• Issue or Problem Statement: A manuscript draft includes authors who have not met established contribution criteria or omits individuals who performed key work.
• Symptoms or Error Indicators
  • A named author cannot articulate the study's core findings or their specific role.
  • A contributor who developed the methodology or analyzed data is only mentioned in the acknowledgments or is not listed at all.
  • The manuscript writing style is inconsistent with the lead author's typical style, suggesting undisclosed medical writing assistance.
• Environment Details: This issue can occur during manuscript preparation, before submission, or during internal review cycles.
• Possible Causes
  • Pressure to include a senior colleague's name to enhance credibility (guest authorship) [48].
  • An industry collaborator or medical writer contributed to the manuscript but was not disclosed (ghost authorship) [48] [50].
  • Unclear authorship criteria within the research team from the project's inception [51].
• Step-by-Step Resolution Process
  • Convene a Meeting: The lead author should call a meeting with all individuals involved in the research and manuscript.
  • Refer to Criteria: Consult a predefined authorship guideline, such as the ICMJE criteria, which typically require substantial contributions to conception, drafting, final approval, and accountability [49].
  • Review Contributions Objectively: Have each individual describe their specific contributions to the research and writing.
  • Adjust the Author List: Based on the guidelines, formally add contributors who meet the criteria and remove those who do not.
  • Formalize Acknowledgments: For individuals who provided support that does not qualify for authorship (e.g., technical help, general supervision), ensure they are properly acknowledged [51].
  • Document the Process: Use a contributorship statement or author agreement form to record each author's role.
• Escalation Path or Next Steps: If a consensus cannot be reached within the team, consult your institution's research integrity officer, department chair, or the journal's editorial guidelines for mediation.
• Validation or Confirmation Step: All named authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript, can describe their contribution, and agree to be accountable for the work [51].
• Additional Notes or References: Many journals now require contributorship statements and disclosure of medical writing assistance. Proactively adopting these practices prevents future disputes [48] [49].

Guide 2: Addressing a Conflict of Interest (COI) Concern

• Issue or Problem Statement: A researcher has a financial or personal relationship that may unduly influence their professional judgment in the research.
• Symptoms or Error Indicators
  • A researcher has a significant financial interest in a company whose product is being studied.
  • A personal relationship (e.g., between family members, close friends, or recent collaborators) exists between a reviewer and an author.
  • Data analysis or interpretation appears selectively favorable to a sponsor's product [50].
• Environment Details: This can arise during research design, data collection, analysis, manuscript writing, or the peer review process.
• Possible Causes
  • Research funding from a pharmaceutical, device, or biotechnology company [50].
  • Consulting agreements, honoraria, or equity holdings related to the research.
  • A desire for professional advancement or recognition.
• Step-by-Step Resolution Process
  • Disclose: The individual with the potential conflict must disclose it in writing to the principal investigator, institutional review board, or journal editor.
  • Assess Severity: Evaluate the conflict's severity based on the value of the secondary interest and the discretion the individual has over the work [50].
  • Manage the Conflict: Management strategies may include:
    • Public Disclosure: Transparently stating the conflict in publications and presentations.
    • Blinded Design: Implementing procedures to shield the researcher from certain data to prevent bias.
    • Independent Oversight: Appointing an independent monitor to review data and procedures.
  • Eliminate the Conflict: In severe cases, it may be necessary to divest financial interests or remove an individual from a specific part of the research.
• Escalation Path or Next Steps: Unresolved or undisclosed conflicts should be escalated to your institution's conflict of interest committee.
• Validation or Confirmation Step: The conflict has been formally documented, a management plan is in place, and all relevant parties (e.g., co-authors, journal) are aware of the disclosure.
• Additional Notes or References: Remember that disclosure is a critical but limited first step; the primary goal is to protect the integrity of professional judgment [50].

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the difference between ghost authorship and legitimate medical writing support? A: The key difference is transparency. Ghost authorship unethically omits a contributor who should be listed as an author. Legitimate medical or technical writing support should be explicitly acknowledged in the manuscript's contributions or acknowledgments section, often with a disclosure of funding source [48].

Q2: Our team collaborates with industry partners. How can we ensure this doesn't lead to ghostwriting? A: Establish a collaboration agreement at the project's start that outlines authorship criteria and disclosure protocols. All contributors, regardless of employer, must be considered for authorship based on their intellectual contribution. The roles of the industry partner and any writers they employ must be transparent in the manuscript [48] [50].

Q3: A senior colleague expects to be an author on every paper from our lab, regardless of involvement. How should we handle this? A: Use a formal authorship checklist or the ICMJE criteria as a neutral reference point [51]. During early project meetings, discuss anticipated authorship and the specific contributions required. This creates an objective framework for these conversations and aligns expectations, reducing the pressure for gift authorship.

Q4: What should I do if I discover an undisclosed conflict of interest in a published paper? A: Contact the journal editor where the paper was published. Journals take such issues seriously and will follow established procedures, such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which may include publishing a correction or expression of concern [52].

Q5: When is the right time to discuss authorship on a research project? A: The best practice is to discuss authorship at the beginning of a project and to revisit the conversation as the work evolves [51]. This proactive approach prevents misunderstandings and disputes later in the process.

Data Presentation: Prevalence of Inappropriate Authorship

The table below summarizes quantitative data on the prevalence of inappropriate authorship practices, illustrating the scale of the challenge.

Table 1: Documented Prevalence of Inappropriate Authorship Practices

Authorship Mispractice	Reported Prevalence Range	Contextual Notes	Source Examples
Gift/Honorary Authorship	20% - 60%	Higher rates reported in some regional studies and disciplines. A study of Cochrane reviews found 39% honorary authorship [49].	[49]
Ghost Authorship	5% - 10%	Can be higher in certain contexts (e.g., 21-29% in some national studies); often linked to industry-sponsored research [48] [49].	[48] [49]
Authorship-Related Retractions	>700 cases	Over 700 retractions explicitly attributable to authorship issues were documented in the Retraction Watch database [49].	[49]

Experimental Protocols: Methodologies for Integrity

Protocol 1: Implementing a Contributor Ship Taxonomy (CRediT)

• Objective: To replace the concept of "authorship" with a detailed, standardized list of specific contributions, ensuring accurate attribution and transparency.
• Background: The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) model defines 14 distinct roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft, Funding Acquisition). This moves beyond traditional authorship to clarify exactly who did what [49].
• Procedure:
  • During manuscript preparation, the lead author circulates the list of CRediT roles.
  • Each contributor self-reports their specific roles.
  • The lead author compiles these statements and seeks consensus from all contributors.
  • This statement is submitted with the manuscript and published with the article.
• Expected Outcome: A transparent, machine-readable record of contributions that minimizes gift and ghost authorship and clarifies accountability.

Protocol 2: Conducting a Pre-Submission Authorship Meeting

• Objective: To formally confirm authorship and resolve disputes before manuscript submission.
• Background: A structured, mandatory meeting ensures all contributors have a voice and agree on the author list and order [51].
• Procedure:
  • The lead author distributes the near-final manuscript and a draft author list at least one week before the meeting.
  • The meeting is attended by all individuals involved in the research and writing.
  • The group reviews each individual's contributions against the team's pre-agreed authorship criteria (e.g., ICMJE).
  • A final author list and order are confirmed by group consensus. Any disagreements are mediated and resolved.
  • All authors formally sign an "Author Agreement Form" confirming their approval.
• Expected Outcome: Unanimous agreement on authorship, documented consent from all authors, and prevention of post-submission disputes.

Mandatory Visualizations

Authorship Lifecycle and Conflict Check

Research Reagent Solutions: The Integrity Toolkit

The following table details key procedural "reagents" essential for conducting ethical research and avoiding conflicts.

Table 2: Essential Materials for Maintaining Research Integrity

Tool Name	Function	Source / Example
ICMJE Authorship Criteria	Defines the four core requirements for authorship: substantial contribution, drafting/revising, approval, and accountability.	International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (icmje.org)
CRediT Taxonomy	A standardized list of 14 roles to accurately describe each contributor's specific tasks.	CASRAI (credit.casrai.org)
Author Agreement Form	A document signed by all authors confirming their contribution, approval, and disclosure of conflicts.	Institutional templates (e.g., [51])
Disclosure Form (COI)	A standardized form for declaring financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.	Institutional COI committees; Journal submission systems [50]
Antimicrobial agent-21	Antimicrobial agent-21, MF:C18H13N3OS, MW:319.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Ensuring Compliance and Accountability: Journal Policies, AI Disclosure, and Institutional Roles in 2025

This guide provides troubleshooting and FAQs on authorship and disclosure policies for researchers. It is framed within a broader thesis on addressing authorship disputes and ghost authorship research, helping you navigate complex publication requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the universally accepted criteria for authorship in academic research?

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria are the most widely adopted standard across major publishers. To qualify as an author, an individual must meet all of the following conditions [35] [53]:

• Substantial Contribution: Make significant contributions to the conception/design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
• Drafting and Revision: Participate in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
• Final Approval: Provide final approval of the version to be published.
• Accountability: Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are properly investigated and resolved.

Individuals who do not meet all these criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section rather than listed as authors [35].

Q2: Our team includes researchers who provided technical support and collected data. Should they be co-authors?

Not necessarily. Authorship requires substantial intellectual contribution. Technical support, routine data collection, or providing general supervision or materials do not typically qualify someone for authorship [54]. These contributors should be listed in the Acknowledgements section with their specific roles described. The key differentiator is whether the individual contributed to the interpretation of the data or the intellectual content of the manuscript.

Q3: What is the difference between ghost and gift authorship, and why are they problematic?

Both are considered unethical authorship practices [54]:

• Ghost Authorship: Occurs when individuals who make substantial contributions to the research or writing are not named as authors. This often hides the involvement of commercial sponsors.
• Gift/Honorary Authorship: Occurs when individuals who have not made substantial intellectual contributions are listed as authors, often to gain favor or enhance the paper's credibility.

These practices are harmful because they undermine research credibility, obscure true accountability, and can introduce undeclared biases.

Q4: What specific disclosures are required beyond authorship information?

Journals typically require transparent declarations of the following [35] [55]:

• Funding Sources: All sources of financial support must be declared, including grant numbers.
• Competing Interests: Any financial (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership) or non-financial (e.g., personal relationships, political beliefs) interests that could influence the research.
• Ethics Approvals: For studies involving human or animal subjects, details of ethics committee approval and informed consent procedures.
• Data and Materials Transparency: Statements on data availability to support published claims.
• AI Use: Most publishers now require declaration of AI tool usage in the manuscript preparation [56].

Q5: Can an AI tool like ChatGPT be listed as a co-author?

No. Major publishers including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE explicitly prohibit attributing authorship to AI tools or Large Language Models (LLMs) [56] [57]. The rationale is that AI cannot take responsibility for the work, approve the final manuscript, or be held accountable for the research integrity. However, using AI tools must be transparently disclosed in the Methods or Acknowledgements section [53] [56].

Q6: What should we do if we need to add an author after manuscript submission?

Authorship changes after submission are highly scrutinized. Most journals require that any change to the author list (additions, deletions, order changes) must be approved by all original authors [35]. The corresponding author must contact the journal editor, explain the reason for the change, and provide written confirmation from all co-authors approving the change. Some journals may require a formal correction notice if the change occurs after publication.

Q7: Who should be designated as the corresponding author, and what are their responsibilities?

The corresponding author acts on behalf of all co-authors and is primarily responsible for [35] [53]:

• Managing all communication with the journal before and after publication.
• Ensuring all authors approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission.
• Completing all submission forms and signing publishing agreements on behalf of the group.
• Post-publication correspondence, including responding to queries about ethics, data, and methodology.

Typically, the corresponding author is the individual who has overseen the research most closely and is best positioned to answer detailed questions about the work.

Troubleshooting Common Scenarios

Scenario 1: A colleague demands co-authorship but only provided minor feedback

• Problem: Gift authorship request from someone who doesn't meet ICMJE criteria.
• Solution: Politely explain journal authorship policies require substantial intellectual contribution. Suggest alternative acknowledgment instead of authorship. Many journals require all authors to sign forms confirming they meet authorship criteria, which provides objective support for your decision [54].

Scenario 2: Discovering an unnamed contributor should have been included

• Problem: Potential ghost authorship identified after submission.
• Solution: Immediately contact the journal editor. Explain the oversight and request to add the contributor if they meet authorship criteria. Provide evidence that all authors (including the new one) approve the change. Expect heightened scrutiny from the journal.

Scenario 3: Uncertainty about declaring AI tool usage

• Problem: Determining when and how to disclose AI assistance.
• Solution: Use this decision framework [56] [57]:

Scenario 4: Disagreement about author order among co-authors

• Problem: Multiple contributors claim first authorship.
• Prevention: Establish author order early using these methodologies:
  • Contribution Weighting: Create a spreadsheet quantifying contributions to each research component.
  • First Author Determination: The individual making the greatest overall contribution typically becomes first author, often the researcher who conducted experiments and wrote the first draft [58].
  • Last Author Position: Typically reserved for the principal investigator or senior researcher who supervised the work [58].
  • Equal Contribution Statements: Many journals now permit notes specifying when multiple authors contributed equally.

Essential Policies Comparison: Major Academic Publishers

Table: Comparative overview of authorship and disclosure policies across major publishers

Publisher	Authorship Criteria	AI Policy	Disclosure Requirements	Unique Policy Features
Elsevier	ICMJE-based [35]	AI prohibited as author; requires separate declaration statement [56]	Funding, conflicts of interest, ethics approval [35]	Provides specific template for AI disclosure [56]
Springer Nature	ICMJE-based [35]	AI prohibited as author; document in Methods; "AI assisted copy editing" exempt [56] [57]	Funding, conflicts, data transparency [35]	Explicitly defines and exempts "AI assisted copy editing" [56]
Wiley	ICMJE-based [35]	AI prohibited as author; disclose in Methods/Acknowledgements [56]	Financial support, interested parties ≥$10,000 [55]	Requires authors to review AI tool Terms & Conditions [56]
Cambridge	ICMJE-based with discipline-specific norms [53]	AI must be declared; cannot be author; authors accountable for accuracy [53]	Varies by journal; generally requires funding, conflicts [53]	Inclusive name change policy for authors [53]
AEA Journals	Substantial contribution and accountability [55]	Not explicitly addressed in results	Detailed financial disclosure (>$10,000 support) [55]	Requires separate PDF disclosure statement [55]

Research Reagent Solutions: Authorship Verification Tools

Table: Key tools and methodologies for addressing authorship disputes and verification

Tool/Method	Primary Function	Application in Authorship Research
Digital Fingerprinting	Creates unique, timestamped content identity [59]	Establishes precedence of ideas; verifies original contribution timing
Blockchain Verification	Provides immutable record of content creation and changes [59]	Creates auditable trail of contributions; helps resolve disputes
Stylometric Analysis	Analyzes writing style patterns using n-gram profiles [60]	Verifies authorship attribution; detects potential ghostwriting
Contribution Taxonomies (CRediT)	Standardized categories for researcher contributions	Clarifies individual inputs when disputes arise; documents diverse roles
ORCID IDs	Persistent digital identifier for researchers [35]	Prevents name ambiguity; ensures proper attribution across publications

Experimental Protocol: Establishing Author Contributions

To prevent disputes, implement this systematic approach when starting research collaborations:

Methodology:

• Initial Documentation: At project start, create a living document outlining expected contributions using a standardized taxonomy (e.g., CRediT).
• Contribution Tracking: Maintain records of each researcher's inputs throughout the project lifecycle.
• Regular Reviews: Schedule periodic team meetings specifically to review contributions and adjust authorship expectations.
• Pre-Submission Verification: Before manuscript preparation, formally assess whether all potential authors meet authorship criteria and finalize author order.
• Written Confirmation: Obtain written agreement from all authors regarding their contributions and position in the author list.

This protocol creates objective evidence for resolving potential disputes and ensures all contributors are properly acknowledged from the project's inception.

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting AI Authorship in Research

This support center provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with practical guides for identifying AI-generated text and navigating the associated authorship disputes within scientific research.

---

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Suspecting AI-Generated Text in a Collaborator's Draft

Symptoms: Text feels overly descriptive yet static; language is formulaic with recurrent phrases like "it is worth noting that"; a lack of dynamic or action-oriented language.

Resolution Steps:

• Isolate the Text: Separate the text in question for individual analysis.
• Run a Linguistic Analysis: If available, use a platform like Open Brain AI to analyze linguistic dimensions such as morphology, syntax, and lexicon [61].
• Calculate Key Indicators: Manually check for the following traits and compare them to the benchmarks in Table 1:
  • Noun-Heavy Language: Calculate the ratio of nouns to verbs. AI text typically uses ~21% more nouns and ~13% fewer verbs than human writers [61].
  • Low Vocabulary Diversity: Calculate the Type-Token Ratio (TTR). AI text often has a TTR of ~45.5, significantly lower than the human average of ~55.3 [61].
  • Check for Overused Terms: Scan for phrases that are overrepresented in AI content (e.g., "leverage," "embrace") [61].
• Document Findings: Compile the quantitative and qualitative evidence.
• Initiate a Dialogue: Discuss your findings with the collaborator or your PI, focusing on the textual evidence and the team's authorship and contribution policy.

Guide 2: An AI Tool Was Used in Writing; How to Disclose?

Symptoms: Uncertainty about how to report the use of an AI writing assistant in a manuscript or grant application to avoid "ghost authorship" allegations.

Resolution Steps:

• Define the Tool's Role: Precisely document how the AI was used (e.g., for language polishing, generating initial drafts of sections, or summarizing literature).
• Review Journal/Institutional Policies: Check the specific guidelines from the target publication or your institution regarding AI usage disclosure. The FDA emphasizes transparency in AI use for regulatory submissions [62].
• Acknowledge in Methods or Acknowledgements Section: Include a statement such as: "The authors utilized [AI Tool Name, Version] for [specific purpose, e.g., initial drafting of the introduction and language editing]. The authors subsequently reviewed, edited, and take full responsibility for the final content."
• Maintain Human Accountability: Ensure that all human authors verify the accuracy and integrity of the AI-assisted content. As with patent filings, vague or overly flexible language tuned to pass review should be avoided [63].

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQ 1: What are the most reliable linguistic markers for distinguishing AI-generated text from human-written text in scientific manuscripts?

The most reliable markers are quantitative linguistic features. Research indicates that a hybrid approach analyzing multiple parameters is most effective [61]. The following table summarizes key differentiating factors based on empirical studies.

Table 1: Key Linguistic Differentiators Between Human and AI-Generated Scientific Text

Linguistic Parameter	Human-Written Text	AI-Generated Text	Explanation
Perplexity	57.3	37.8	Higher perplexity indicates more unpredictable, creative language use [61].
Burstiness	0.61	0.38	Higher burstiness reflects greater variation in sentence length and structure [61].
Morphology: Verb Usage	12.8% higher	Lower	Human writing is more action-oriented [61].
Morphology: Noun Usage	Lower	21.3% higher	AI text is more descriptive and static [61].
Content-to-Function Word Ratio	~0.98 (balanced)	~1.37 (high)	AI overuses content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives), creating "heavy" text [61].
Type-Token Ratio (TTR)	~55.3	~45.5	Higher TTR indicates greater vocabulary diversity [61].

FAQ 2: Our research group used an AI model to generate a first draft of a research paper. Who should be listed as an author?

The AI model itself should not be listed as an author. Authorship must be reserved for individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions [63] [64]. The human researchers who provided the prompts, curated the input data, interpreted the output, and revised the draft for scientific accuracy and integrity are the legitimate authors. Their specific contributions (e.g., "conceptualization," "methodology," "writing – review & editing") should be explicitly stated using the CRediT taxonomy. The use of the AI tool must be transparently disclosed in the acknowledgments or methods section [64].

FAQ 3: What constitutes "ghost authorship" in the context of AI-assisted writing?

AI-assisted ghost authorship occurs when AI tools make substantial contributions to the drafting of a manuscript, but this contribution is not disclosed [63]. This creates a new ethical layer, as the "ghostwriter" is a non-human agent. Failure to disclose AI assistance misrepresents the true origin of the intellectual work and undermines accountability, similar to undisclosed ghostwriting in industry-sponsored research [63].

FAQ 4: Are there established regulatory guidelines for using AI in drug development and documentation?

Yes, regulatory bodies are actively developing frameworks. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance that outlines a risk-based credibility assessment framework for AI models used in regulatory decision-making for drugs [62]. This framework includes steps like defining the context of use, assessing risk, developing a credibility plan, and documenting results. Adhering to such guidelines is crucial for ensuring the ethical and effective use of AI in this high-stakes field [62] [64].

---

Experimental Protocols for AI Authorship Identification

Protocol 1: Quantitative Linguistic Analysis for AI-Generated Text Detection

Objective: To determine the probability that a given text sample was generated by an AI using a weighted analysis of multiple linguistic parameters [61].

Materials:

• Text sample (>500 words for higher accuracy [61])
• Computational linguistics software (e.g., Open Brain AI platform [61])
• Stylometric analysis tools

Workflow:

• Text Preprocessing: Clean and prepare the text data, removing any non-linguistic elements (tables, figures, references).
• Feature Extraction: Use software to analyze the text and extract the following features:
  • Lexical Features: Type-Token Ratio (TTR), content-to-function word ratio [61].
  • Morphological Features: Part-of-speech distribution (noun, verb, adjective, adverb ratios) [61].
  • Syntactic Features: Sentence length variation (burstiness), parse tree complexity [61].
  • Readability Metrics: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, etc.
• Parameter Scoring: For each extracted feature, score how closely it matches typical AI patterns on a scale from 0 (human-like) to 1 (AI-like).
• Probability Calculation: Apply the predetermined weights to each parameter category and calculate the overall probability using the formula: P(AI) = (Σ(Parameter Weight × AI Indicator Score)) / Σ(Weights) × 100% [61].

Diagram: AI Detection Workflow. This diagram outlines the process from text input to probability calculation.

Protocol 2: Validation of AI-Generated Scientific Content

Objective: To verify the factual accuracy, logical consistency, and absence of bias in AI-generated scientific content before its use in research documentation [65].

Materials:

• AI-generated content draft
• Trusted scientific literature databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus)
• Fact-checking and bias detection software (e.g., AI content validation tools [65])

Workflow:

• Fact-Checking: Cross-reference all factual claims, data points, and citations against original, high-quality sources [65].
• Logical Consistency Check: Manually review the text for internal contradictions, unsupported conclusions, and flaws in argument flow. AI can sometimes produce plausible but logically inconsistent text [65].
• Bias Audit: Use automated tools to scan the text for algorithmic bias related to gender, race, or other demographics. Manually assess if the content fairly represents the field and relevant populations [64].
• Source Verification: Ensure that cited sources are real, correctly interpreted, and not hallucinated by the AI model [65].
• Expert Human Review: The final and most critical step is a thorough review by a subject matter expert to assess overall integrity, nuance, and appropriateness of the content [62] [64].

Diagram: AI Content Validation. This process ensures factual, logical, and unbiased AI-generated content.

---

Research Reagent Solutions

This table details key tools and frameworks essential for researching AI authorship and ensuring ethical compliance.

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for AI Authorship and Ethics

Tool / Framework Name	Type	Primary Function in Research
Open Brain AI Platform [61]	Software Tool	Analyzes text across phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon, and semantics to extract linguistic features for AI-detection models.
NLP Bias Detection Tools [65]	Software Tool	Identifies unintended biases (gender, race, etc.) in AI-generated text, crucial for ensuring fairness and inclusivity in research documentation.
FDA's Risk-Based Credibility Framework [62]	Regulatory Framework	A 7-step guide for establishing the credibility of AI/ML models used in drug development, supporting regulatory decisions for drug safety and efficacy.
The Collatz Diagnostic [63]	Ethical Diagnostic Tool	A recursive reasoning tool to help institutions identify ethical drift and "ghost authorship" risks in systems increasingly reliant on AI.
AI Content Validation Platforms [65]	Integrated Software	Holistic platforms that perform cross-modal analysis, fact verification, and plagiarism detection to ensure the overall integrity of AI-generated content.

Troubleshooting Guides

Guide 1: Resolving an Authorship Dispute

Problem: Co-authors disagree about who should be included in the author list or the order of authors.

Solution: Follow a structured, multi-step resolution process.

• Step 1: Informal Discussion and Mediation

  • Action: The involved parties should first attempt to resolve the conflict through direct, good-faith discussions [66].
  • Troubleshooting: If direct discussion fails, consult with your Laboratory/Branch Chief, Department Head, or an institutional Ombuds Office [66].
  • Expected Outcome: Many disputes can be resolved at this stage without formal procedures.

• Step 2: Review Authorship Criteria

  • Action: Revisit the originally agreed-upon authorship criteria and contribution documentation. Most institutions and journals recommend using established guidelines like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria to objectively evaluate contributions [45] [67] [23].
  • Troubleshooting Tip: If no criteria were established at the start of the project, use the ICMJE criteria as a neutral benchmark.
  • ICMJE Criteria Checklist:
    • Substantial contributions to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation.
    • Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
    • Final approval of the version to be published.
    • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work [45] [68].

• Step 3: Formal Adjudication

  • Action: If informal resolution is unsuccessful after a reasonable period (e.g., three months), any party may request formal adjudication by contacting the institution's designated official, such as an Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO) [66].
  • Process: The formal process typically involves a factfinder who reviews all evidence and a deciding official who makes a binding decision [66].

Guide 2: Preventing and Addressing Ghost Authorship

Problem: An individual who made a substantial contribution to the research or manuscript has been omitted from the author list.

Solution: Implement transparency measures to ensure all contributors are appropriately credited.

• Step 1: Define Roles Early

  • Action: At the start of a project, all collaborators should discuss and agree on authorship criteria and the roles that warrant authorship [45] [69].
  • Troubleshooting Tip: Use a written authorship agreement to document these initial decisions and revisit them as the project evolves [45] [67].

• Step 2: Mandate Contribution Statements

  • Action: For every manuscript, include a detailed "Author Contributions" section that specifies each author's specific role, using taxonomies like CRediT [1] [45].
  • Example: "A.B.: conceptualization, methodology, writing – original draft; C.D.: formal analysis, data curation, writing – review & editing."

• Step 3: Disclose All Writing and Editorial Support

  • Action: If professional medical writers or other external personnel contributed to the manuscript, they must be explicitly acknowledged, along with their affiliations and funders [1] [46] [69]. Their involvement does not preclude authorship if they meet the authorship criteria [1].

• Step 4: Use the Acknowledgments Section Correctly

  • Action: Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all authorship criteria (e.g., provided technical services, reagents, or general supervision) should be listed in the Acknowledgments section [1] [45] [23].
  • Example: "The authors thank [Full Name] for their assistance with data collection and [Full Name] for providing the valuable reagent."

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the difference between ghost, guest, and gift authorship? A1:

• Ghost Authorship: Occurs when an individual who made a substantial contribution (e.g., a paid medical writer or researcher) is not listed as an author and is also not acknowledged [1] [41].
• Guest Authorship: Involves adding an influential individual (e.g., a department head) to the author list to boost the manuscript's credibility, despite their lack of a substantial intellectual contribution [1] [46].
• Gift Authorship: Granting authorship to a colleague or junior researcher as a "gift" or favor, for career advancement, or in return for a service, even if they do not meet authorship criteria [1] [23].

Q2: What are the core institutional policies that should be in place to uphold authorship integrity? A2: Institutions should have clear, documented policies that:

• Adopt Standardized Criteria: Formally endorse a set of authorship criteria, such as the ICMJE guidelines, and ensure they are communicated to all researchers [45] [23] [70].
• Require Early Discussions: Mandate that research collaborators discuss and document authorship expectations at the start of a project [45] [69].
• Establish a Clear Conflict Resolution Pathway: Provide a published, multi-step process for resolving authorship disputes, from informal mediation to formal adjudication [66] [23].
• Promote Transparency: Require author contribution statements and full disclosure of writing assistance for all publications [1] [69].

Q3: How can funders help prevent unethical authorship practices? A3: Funders can:

• Make Adherence to Ethical Standards a Grant Condition: Require grant recipients to comply with institutional authorship policies and relevant international guidelines (e.g., ICMJE, COPE) [70].
• Mandate Training: Require principal investigators and trainees to complete training in responsible authorship practices [45].
• Require Contribution Disclosure: Implement policies that require detailed author contribution statements in all publications arising from funded research [69].

Q4: What are the key responsibilities of a corresponding author? A4: The corresponding author is primarily responsible for:

• Managing communication with the journal during submission and peer review [45].
• Ensuring all listed authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript [45] [68].
• Coordinating the completion of administrative requirements, such as authorship contribution forms and conflict-of-interest disclosures [45].
• Serving as the point of contact for post-publication inquiries [45].

Q5: Can an AI tool like ChatGPT be listed as an author? A5: No. AI tools do not qualify for authorship because they cannot be accountable for the work, approve the manuscript, or agree to the terms of publication. However, the use of AI tools in research or writing must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript [45].

Quantitative Data on Authorship Practices

The following table summarizes quantitative insights from a survey of 498 stakeholders (clinical investigators, journal editors, publication professionals, and medical writers) involved in industry-sponsored clinical trials [69].

Table 1: Survey Results on Authorship Scenarios and Guideline Awareness

Metric	Clinical Investigators	Journal Editors	Publication Professionals	Medical Writers
Familiarity with ICMJE guidelines	49%	84%	97%	89%
Familiarity with GPP2 guidelines	35%	71%	87%	79%
Reported using no guidelines	28%	10%	2%	6%
Case 1: Support authorship for contributor who only recruited patients/managed site	68%	49%	56%	58%
Case 2: Support authorship for statistician with substantial contribution but no design/drafting role	54%	61%	72%	67%

Experimental Protocols for Authorship Integrity

Protocol 1: Implementing the Five-Step Authorship Framework

This framework is designed to create a standardized, transparent approach to determining authorship, particularly for large, collaborative projects like clinical trials [69].

• Form a Representative Authorship Panel: Early in a trial, establish a group that includes the lead investigator, key co-investigators, a biostatistician, and a representative from the sponsoring organization.
• Establish and Document Authorship Criteria: The panel agrees on the specific contributions that will qualify an individual for authorship, using a recognized guideline like ICMJE as a baseline. This agreement is documented.
• Obtain Agreement from All Contributors: All individuals involved in the trial agree to the established authorship criteria.
• Systematically Document All Contributions: Throughout the trial, the contributions of all participants are systematically recorded against the pre-defined criteria.
• Invite Authorship Based on Documented Contributions: When preparing a manuscript, authorship invitations are extended only to those whose documented contributions meet the agreed-upon criteria.

Protocol 2: Authorship Dispute Resolution Process

This protocol outlines the formal steps for resolving an authorship conflict that cannot be settled informally, based on the NIH IRP model [66].

• Request for Formal Adjudication: A party to the conflict submits a written request for formal adjudication to the institution's designated official (e.g., the Research Integrity Officer).
• Assessment and Triage: The official assesses the request to confirm it falls under the authorship policy and checks for other issues (e.g., research misconduct).
• Appointment of a Factfinder: A neutral factfinder (FF) is appointed to investigate the conflict.
• Fact-Finding and Recommendation: The FF reviews all relevant evidence (e.g., emails, drafts, research records) and issues a written recommendation to a Deciding Official (DO).
• Binding Decision: The DO reviews the recommendation and issues a final, binding decision on the authorship dispute to all parties.

Visual Workflows and Diagrams

Authorship Dispute Resolution Workflow

Five-Step Authorship Framework

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Authorship Integrity

Table 2: Key Resources for Upholding Authorship Integrity

Tool / Resource	Function	Source / Reference
ICMJE Authorship Guidelines	Provides the most widely recognized set of four criteria for determining who qualifies for authorship.	International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [45] [67]
CRediT Taxonomy	A high-level, standardized classification of 14 roles used to clearly describe each author's contributions (e.g., Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing).	CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) [1]
Written Authorship Agreement	A documented plan, created at the start of a project, that outlines anticipated author roles and order to prevent future disputes.	Brown University, Cambridge University Guidelines [45] [67]
Author Contribution Statement	A mandatory section in a manuscript where each author's specific contributions are detailed, ensuring transparency.	Nature, Science journal policies [1]
COPE Guidelines & Resources	Provides extensive resources, flowcharts, and advice on handling authorship disputes and other publication ethics issues.	Committee on Publication Ethics [1] [67]
Formal Conflict Resolution Policy	An institutional framework that provides a clear, step-by-step process for formally adjudicating unresolved authorship conflicts.	NIH IRP Policy [66]

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Research Accountability

This guide provides troubleshooting support for researchers navigating data sharing and authorship accountability to uphold scientific integrity and combat ghost authorship.

---

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is a Data Availability Statement, and why is my manuscript submission being returned for not having one? A Data Availability Statement (DAS) tells readers where and how the data supporting a paper's results can be accessed, often including links to repositories [71] [72]. Many journals now mandate a DAS as part of the submission process to ensure research transparency and reproducibility [71]. If your manuscript was returned, you need to add this statement before the 'References' section [71].

Q2: My data contains sensitive patient information. How can I write a Data Availability Statement without violating privacy? You do not have to share sensitive data publicly. Your Data Availability Statement should explain why the data are not publicly available and describe the conditions under which they can be accessed (e.g., upon reasonable request from a controlled data storage facility) [71] [72]. For example: "The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants" [71].

Q3: What is the difference between ghost authorship and honorary authorship, and why are they problematic?

• Ghost Authorship: When an individual who has made substantial contributions to the research or writing is not named as an author [73].
• Honorary/Guest Authorship: When an individual is named as an author despite not having made a significant contribution [73]. Both practices undermine accountability and integrity in scientific publications, as they misrepresent who is responsible for the work [73].

Q4: Our research group is facing a dispute about the order of authors. How can we resolve this? Authorship disputes are often caused by a rise in multiple authorship and a lack of clear guidelines [73]. To resolve them, institutions and journals should establish strong practices. The most effective solution is to have discussions about authorship eligibility and order prior to writing the manuscript [73]. A team approach to assigning authorship is recommended [73].

Q5: I am only re-using publicly available data. Do I still need a Data Availability Statement? Yes. In this case, your statement should cite the publicly available datasets you used. For example: "The data that support the findings of this study are available in [repository name] at [URL/DOI]. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: [list resources and URLs]" [71].

---

Troubleshooting Guides

Problem: A colleague demands authorship but has not contributed substantially to the research. This is a potential case of honorary authorship.

Troubleshooting Step	Action & Documentation
1. Identify the Problem	Gather information: Review journal-specific authorship guidelines (e.g., ICMJE criteria) and document the colleague's actual contributions [73].
2. Establish a Theory of Probable Cause	The root cause is often a lack of pre-established authorship guidelines within the research team [73].
3. Test the Theory & Plan Action	Consult institutional policies. Prepare to discuss formal contribution criteria with the team and the colleague in question.
4. Implement the Solution	Facilit a meeting to transparently discuss and apply formal authorship criteria. If internal resolution fails, escalate to a department head or institutional ethics committee.
5. Verify & Document	Document the meeting outcomes and the final agreed-upon author list. For the future, establish a written authorship plan for all new projects [73].

Problem: My Data Availability Statement was rejected for being too vague. A common issue is using a generic statement when a specific one is required.

Troubleshooting Step	Action & Documentation
1. Identify the Problem	The statement lacks specific information, such as a persistent identifier (DOI) or a clear reason for restrictions [72].
2. Establish a Theory of Probable Cause	The most probable cause is using an incorrect template for your data's specific access conditions [71].
3. Test the Theory & Plan Action	Compare your statement against publisher templates. Match your data situation (e.g., in a repository, available on request) to the correct template [71] [72].
4. Implement the Solution	Rewrite the DAS using the correct, specific template. For data in a repository, always include the hyperlink and accession number or DOI [72].
5. Verify & Document	Review the journal's data policy again and submit the revised, specific statement.

---

Data Presentation: Data Availability Statement Templates

The table below summarizes standard templates for various data scenarios to ensure clarity and compliance [71].

Data Availability Scenario	Template for Data Availability Statement
Data in a Repository (with DOI)	The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name, e.g., “figshare”] at http://doi.org/[doi], reference number [reference number] [71].
Data Available on Request	The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [author initials], upon reasonable request [71].
Data within Article	The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials [71].
Third-Party Data Restrictions	The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party]. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from the authors with the permission of [third party] [71].
No New Data Generated	Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study [71].
Embargoed Data	The data that support the findings will be available in [repository name] at [URL / DOI link] following a [6 month] embargo from the date of publication to allow for commercialization of research findings [71].

---

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Drafting a Compliant Data Availability Statement

Objective: To create a clear and journal-compliant Data Availability Statement that accurately reflects the accessibility of the research data.

Methodology:

• Classify Your Data: Determine which of the following scenarios best fits your data [71] [72]:
  • Publicly available in a repository (with or without a DOI).
  • Included within the manuscript or its supplementary materials.
  • Available only upon request from the corresponding author (due to privacy, ethical, or legal restrictions).
  • Derived from public domain resources.
  • Not generated or analyzed in the study.
• Select the Template: Using the table above, select the corresponding template for your data scenario.
• Customize the Statement: Fill in the template blanks with specific details, such as the repository name, persistent identifier (DOI/URL), corresponding author's initials, or a clear reason for restrictions [71].
• Incorporate into Manuscript: Place the final statement in your manuscript text, just before the 'References' section, under the heading 'Data availability statement' [71].

Protocol 2: Establishing Authorship Criteria to Prevent Disputes

Objective: To proactively define author roles and order, preventing potential disputes before manuscript writing begins.

Methodology:

• Adopt a Standard: At the start of a project, adopt a recognized set of authorship criteria, such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [73]. The four ICMJE criteria typically require authors to have contributed to:
  • The conception or design of the work; OR the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
  • Final approval of the version to be published.
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
• Document Contributions: Maintain a log of contributions from all team members throughout the research process.
• Determine Order Early: Discuss and agree upon the order of authors early in the project lifecycle. A team approach to this decision is recommended [73].
• Revisit and Confirm: Before submission, reconvene to review contributions against the pre-established criteria and confirm the author list and order.

---

Visualization: Research Accountability Workflow

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item / Resource	Function & Explanation
Data Repository (e.g., Figshare, GEO)	A public, curated archive for research data. Depositing data here with a unique DOI ensures long-term preservation, discoverability, and allows it to be cited [71] [72].
Data Availability Statement	A formal statement in a research article that describes where, how, and under what conditions the underlying data can be accessed, crucial for transparency and reproducibility [71].
ICMJE Guidelines	The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides definitive criteria for determining authorship, which help prevent disputes by establishing clear, standardized contribution requirements [73].
Persistent Identifier (DOI)	A permanent digital identifier for a dataset (or article). Including a DOI in a Data Availability Statement provides a stable link that will not break over time [72].
Contribution Log	An internal document for tracking the specific tasks and inputs of each team member. Serves as objective evidence for determining rightful authorship [73].

Conclusion

Addressing ghost authorship and authorship disputes is fundamental to the integrity of biomedical and clinical research. By embracing clear definitions, utilizing structured frameworks like ICMJE and CRediT, engaging in proactive planning, and adhering to evolving journal policies—including those on AI disclosure—research teams can foster a more transparent, equitable, and accountable culture. Moving forward, institutions, journals, and researchers share a collective responsibility to move beyond mere publication counts and instead value and reward demonstrable contributions. This cultural shift is essential not only for protecting individual careers but also for maintaining public trust in science and ensuring that the credit for scientific progress is assigned accurately and ethically.

References

• 1. , Ghost , Authorship ... | AJE Gift Authorship Guest Authorship [https://www.aje.com/arc/ghost-authorship-gift-authorship-guest-authorship]
• 2. Ghost Authorship | AJE [https://blog.aje.com/en/ghost-authorship]
• 3. 2.2 Authorship and Authorship Responsibilities [https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities]
• 4. What is Ghost, Guest, and Gift Authorship in Research?: eContent Pro [https://www.econtentpro.com/blog/what-is-ghost-guest-and-gift-authorship-in-research/378]
• 5. How we deal with authorship and author disputes [https://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/how-we-deal-with-authorship-and-author-disputes]
• 6. Ghost Authorship vs. Honorary Authorship in Scientific Research - Enago Academy [https://www.enago.com/academy/difference-between-honorary-and-ghost-authorship-in-scientific-research/]
• 7. Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration | Research Integrity and Peer Review | Full Text [https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z]
• 8. Ghost Authorship | AJE [https://www.aje.com/arc/ghost-authorship]
• 9. Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40026541/]
• 10. ICMJE 2025 : Key Changes in Authorship , AI Use, and Ethical... [https://www.proof-reading-service.com/blogs/ai-in-scholarly-publishing/icmje-2025-key-changes-in-authorship-ai-use-and-ethical-publishing]
• 11. How to Handle Co- Authorship Professionally Disputes [https://research-studies-press.co.uk/2025/02/18/how-to-handle-co-authorship-disputes-professionally/]
• 12. ‘ Authorship Guidelines for Scientific Work’ Launched to Help... [https://www.upm.edu.ph/cpt_news/authorship-guidelines-for-scientific-work-launched-to-help-researchers-resolve-transparency-issues/]
• 13. : contributions, disputes, and misconduct | Royal Society Authorship [https://royalsociety.org/blog/2022/03/authorship-contributions-disputes-misconduct/]
• 14. Plagiarism and Authorship Disputes | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity [https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-and-authorship-disputes]
• 15. Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in... Authorship [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393470/]
• 16. What Is Authorship Abuse in Research? - Enago Academy [https://www.enago.com/academy/authorship-abuse-research/]
• 17. Who is the author: genuine, honorary, ghost, gold, and fake authors? [https://www.explorationpub.com/Journals/ec/Article/101224]
• 18. : Retractions & Case Studies Authorship Disputes [https://editverse.com/authorship-disputes-leading-to-retractions-case-studies-and-lessons-learned/]
• 19. A three-step process for resolving paper disputes | News | Nature Index [https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/a-three-step-process-for-resolving-paper-authorship-disputes]
• 20. Case Study: Ethics & Team Power in Dynamics Decisions Authorship [https://onlineethics.org/cases/case-study-ethics-team-power-dynamics-authorship-decisions]
• 21. | Recommendations | Defining the Role of Authors and... ICMJE [https://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html]
• 22. Authorship issues - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3469942/]
• 23. Guidance on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications | Office of the Provost [https://provost.yale.edu/policies/academic-integrity/guidance-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific-publications]
• 24. Inappropriate Journal Authorship , Disputes , Plagiarism, and Mistrust... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10619989/]
• 25. Origins of CRediT – CRediT [https://credit.niso.org/origins/]
• 26. Contributor Roles Taxonomy - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Roles_Taxonomy]
• 27. Recognizing Contributions and Giving Credit - Eos [https://eos.org/editors-vox/recognizing-contributions-and-giving-credit]
• 28. CRediT taxonomy – JATS4R [https://jats4r.niso.org/credit-taxonomy/]
• 29. CRediT author statement | Elsevier [https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement]
• 30. CRediT Taxonomy Inclusion & Benefits for Manuscripts | Dove Press [https://www.dovepress.com/editorial-policies/credit-taxonomy]
• 31. Templates: Download... | CASRAI CRediT Contribution Statement [https://casrai.org/resources-2/templates/contribution-statements/]
• 32. Support & Help Center: Get Help with CRediT CRediT Taxonomy [https://casrai.org/support/]
• 33. Beyond authorship: Analyzing disciplinary patterns of contribution ... [https://zenodo.org/records/14168888]
• 34. ICMJE | Recommendations | Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html]
• 35. Editorial policies - Authorship Principles | Springer | Springer — International Publisher [https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/authorship-principles]
• 36. : guidance and Authorship | Division of Research, Enterprise... disputes [https://www.bristol.ac.uk/research-enterprise-innovation/research-governance/authorship/]
• 37. Criteria for Authorship in Collaborative Research [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/collaborative-research-authorship-criteria]
• 38. Fingerprint Authorship Verification | Plagiarismcheck.org [https://plagiarismcheck.org/fingerprint/]
• 39. Determining Authorship and Resolving Disputes - Research Integrity & Compliance | Montana State University [https://www.montana.edu/ric/responsible-conduct/determining-authorship-and-resolving-disputes.html]
• 40. Authorship Guidelines and Dispute Resolution Process | Research and Partnerships [https://research.arizona.edu/research.arizona.edu/compliance/research-integrity-program/authorship-guidelines-and-dispute-resolution-process]
• 41. in Academia: Authorship , Guest, and Gift Ghost | Paperpal Authorship [https://paperpal.com/blog/researcher/authorship-in-academia-ghost-guest-and-gift-authorship]
• 42. Authorship Guidance: Who to Include and Who to Acknowledge - MDPI Blog [https://blog.mdpi.com/2025/03/19/authorship-guidance/]
• 43. From Guidance to Grievance: Postgraduates, Mentors, and the... [https://jocr.co.in/wp/2025/07/01/from-guidance-to-grievance-postgraduates-mentors-and-the-authorship-dispute/]
• 44. Resolve Authorship with Effective Research Management Disputes [https://www.linkedin.com/advice/1/heres-how-you-can-effectively-resolve-conflicts-dtoee]
• 45. Guidelines on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific... | Brown University [https://division-research.brown.edu/research-cycle/conduct-research/ethics-research/guidelines-authorship-scholarly-or-scientific]
• 46. What Is Ghost , Guest, and Gift Authorship in Research ? [https://www.enago.com/academy/authorship-in-research/]
• 47. and research software | EPCC FAIRness [https://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/fairness-and-research-software]
• 48. Mitigating ghostwriting in academic journals | Turnitin [https://www.turnitin.com/blog/ghostwriting-in-academic-journals-how-can-we-mitigate-its-impact-on-research-integrity]
• 49. Gift, guest & ghost in biomedical... | authorship Square Research [https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6577822/v1]
• 50. Summary - Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice - NCBI Bookshelf [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22926/]
• 51. Author's Checklist for Preparation of Publications | Research | WashU [https://research.washu.edu/authors-checklist-preparation-publications/]
• 52. of Interest in Peer Review - Enago Academy Avoiding Conflict [https://www.enago.com/academy/avoiding-conflict-interest-in-peer-review/]
• 53. cambridge.org/core/services/publishing-ethics/ authorship -and... [https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/publishing-ethics/authorship-and-contributorship-journals]
• 54. Authorship issues - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3276043/]
• 55. Policy Disclosure [https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/policies/disclosure-policy]
• 56. AI Policies in Academic Publishing 2025 : Guide & Checklist [https://www.thesify.ai/blog/ai-policies-academic-publishing-2025]
• 57. guidelines | Quality & Quantity Submission [https://link.springer.com/journal/11135/submission-guidelines]
• 58. Statement of Originality and Disclosure : A Quick Guide for Authors | AJE [https://www.aje.com/arc/statement-of-originality-and-disclosure-a-quick-gu]
• 59. Verification Tools for Authors and Creators: A Guide | ScoreDetect Blog [https://www.scoredetect.com/blog/posts/verification-tools-for-authors-and-creators-a-guide]
• 60. A Profile-Based Method for Authorship Verification | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-07064-3_25]
• 61. - Detecting | MultiLingual AI Generated Content [https://multilingual.com/magazine/september-2025/detecting-ai-generated-content/]
• 62. FDA Guidelines on AI Models: Ensuring Safe & Effective Drug ... [https://www.saama.com/fda-guidelines-on-ai-models-ensuring-safe-effective-drug-development/]
• 63. IP Collapse: Ghost and Structural Drift in Authorship -Aided... AI [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ip-collapse-ghost-authorship-structural-drift-ai-aided-j-m-gmkwc]
• 64. The Ethics of Using AI : Balancing Innovation... in Drug Development [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-using-ai-drug-development-balancing-innovation-alai-mousa-7tdee]
• 65. Using AI Tools for Trustworthy Content Validation AI [https://hastewire.com/blog/using-ai-content-validation-tools-for-trustworthy-ai]
• 66. NIH IRP Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy | NIH Office of Intramural Research [https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/authorship-guidelines-resources/nih-irp-authorship-conflict-resolution-policy]
• 67. Guidelines on Authorship | Research Integrity [https://www.research-integrity.admin.cam.ac.uk/research-integrity/guidance/guidelines-authorship]
• 68. | Office of Research Authorship Integrity [https://www.uaf.edu/ori/responsible-conduct/authorship/]
• 69. Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications | BMC Medicine | Full Text [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-014-0197-z]
• 70. in Research and Scholarship Policy Integrity [https://humber.ca/legal-and-risk-management/policies/academic/integrity-in-research-and-scholarship-policy.html]
• 71. Writing a data - Author Services availability statement [https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/data-sharing/share-your-data/data-availability-statements/]
• 72. | Publish your research | Springer Nature Data Availability Statements [https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy/data-availability-statements]
• 73. (PDF) Addressing authorship disputes [https://www.academia.edu/26452483/Addressing_authorship_disputes]