Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Authorship in Scientific and Scholarly Work Products

Authors are expected to follow the DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, and fulfill the following roles:

-  make substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, experimental design, or planning of the work; and/or
-  are substantively involved in acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting data; and
-  write or improve the work by contributing pivotal scholarly content; and
-  take responsibility for the integrity of the work and approve the final work for publication. ​

Large, multi-disciplinary collaborations should have clearly defined authorship agreements that are established before the project begins and follow bureau authorship requirements. Discussion and attribution of individual contributions is essential in large projects. At a minimum, all authors must be able to identify their contribution, agree to the publication of a manuscript, and, take public responsibility for the full content of the work.

There are important contributions that do not merit authorship but may merit acknowledgment and/or citation, such as:

-  securing funding for the scientific or scholarly work;
-  providing supervisory or administrative support for the scientific or scholarly work;
-  editing and proofreading of the scientific or scholarly work;
-  making available data collected from previously reported or published work or providing materials or specimens.

It is very important to discuss responsibilities and authorship among participating individuals before a project commences and periodically as work progresses. Most authorship disputes can be avoided or resolved by engaging in open conversation early in the process to ensure all contributors agree. A simple authorship agreement may be drafted to keep members of a group project accountable. The authorship agreement should be updated as necessary to reflect any changes in roles, participation, and to reflect any new or departing members.​​ 

While it may feel daunting to approach your supervisor, discussing expectations and responsibilities before a project begins is important and will help identify and establish opportunities for you to contribute as an author. Negotiating authorship should involve purposeful discussion of your contributions and take place often throughout the course of the work. This can help minimize disputes later. The level of contribution expected for authorship can also be discussed and documented in a simple authorship agreement. While simply executing work on a project may not constitute a substantial intellectual contribution to the manuscript (refer to FAQ 1), you may qualify to be included in an acknowledgment section.

Authorship should not be provided to a senior individual who expects or demands it just because he/she is in a position of authority; anyone listed as an author should provide a substantial intellectual contribution to the scientific work (refer to FAQ 1). Providing authorship in this way is known as “honorary” authorship and is a common abuse. Someone who exclusively obtained equipment, funds, or provided top-level supervision may qualify for acknowledgment but not authorship.

Performing routine tasks likely does not merit authorship (refer to FAQ 1); however, authorship is a powerful developmental opportunity and incentive.  Engage technicians early in the process and facilitate their ability to provide the intellectual contributions required to qualify for authorship. Doing so can benefit your entire team and prevent misunderstandings later.

When there is a limited way to describe your work, you should cite the original published work when using the same (or even very similar) text to avoid any appearance of plagiarism.  Self-plagiarism is the reuse of substantial portions of one’s own published work without citing the original work.

You must disclose the earlier publication and attribute your past work because the repeated publication of data or ideas without attribution is another form of self-plagiarism called redundant publication. Engaging in redundant publication might artificially increase your publication record. Further, you could impede scientific progress by displacing new and important scientific findings. Redundant publication can also distort the scientific record by creating the illusion there is more support or evidence for a conclusion than what exists.

Authorship should not be attributed to an individual who does not make a substantial intellectual contribution to the work (refer to FAQ 1); what you describe is called “ghost” authorship and is a common authorship abuse. Adding the name of a well-known scientist to make a scientific work more impressive undermines the research, and potentially damages both your reputation and that of the scientist whose prestige you covet.

This could be another form of “ghost” authorship. It is very important to establish expectations with partners before a project commences and periodically as work progresses. Substantial contributions to a scientific work need to be credited to those who provide them. Identifying all authors plays a critical role in transparency and indicates who is responsible for the information. Otherwise, a conflict of interest or bias could potentially be obscured.

It is the policy of the DOI to facilitate the free flow of scientific information (305 DM 3.4A(5)).  Authorship of scientific and scholarly work is an important mechanism to achieve that objective.  In following the DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly Conduct, the designation of authorship plays a critical role in identifying who performed the work and ensures that both credit and responsibility for the work are attributed to the appropriate individual(s).

The best practices described in the FAQs consider widely accepted approaches from the following:

-  USGS SM 502.10 Fundamental Science Practices: USGS Authorship of Scientific Information Products
-  EPA: Best Practices for Designating Authorship
-  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
-  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
-  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM): Fostering Integrity in Research

The concepts are intended as best practices or guidelines. Questions about best practices or disputes involving scientific integrity in authorship may be directed to your Bureau Scientific Integrity Officer, the DOI Scientific Integrity Coordinators, or the DOI Scientific Integrity Officer.