Authorship in ecology: attribution, accountability, and responsibility

Quality and quantity of publications are among the most important measures determining the success of ecologists. The past 50 years have seen a steady rise in the number of researchers and collaborative manuscripts, and a corresponding increase in multi-authored articles. Despite these increases, there remains a shortage of useful and definitive guidelines to aid ecologists in addressing authorship issues, leading to a lack of consistency in what the term “author” really means. Deciding where to draw the line between those who have earned authorship and those who are more appropriately credited in the acknowledgments may be one of the more challenging aspects of authorship. Here, we borrow ideas from other scientific disciplines and propose a simple solution to help ecologists who are making such decisions. We recommend improving communication between co-authors throughout the research process, and propose that authors publish their contributions to a manuscript in a separate byline.

[1]  Duncan Lindsey,et al.  Production and Citation Measures in the Sociology of Science: The Problem of Multiple Authorship , 1980 .

[2]  S D Moulopoulos,et al.  For debate . . . Individual contributions to multiauthor papers. , 1983, British medical journal.

[3]  D. Rennie,et al.  The contributions of authors. , 2000, JAMA.

[4]  Stephen J. Bensman Essays of an information scientist , 1986, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[5]  D. Rennie,et al.  When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. , 1997, JAMA.

[6]  B J Culliton,et al.  Authorship, data ownership examined. , 1988, Science.

[7]  Carlos Alberto Guimarães,et al.  Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication , 2008, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[8]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Publication policies. , 1993, Health physics.

[10]  A D Farr,et al.  Individual contributions to multiauthor papers , 1984 .

[11]  G. Mancini Documenting Contributions to Authorship , 1990 .

[12]  D. Rennie,et al.  Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. , 1994, JAMA.

[13]  E. Huth Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  D. Rennie,et al.  Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  H. Zuckerman Patterns of Name Ordering Among Authors of Scientific Papers: A Study of Social Symbolism and Its Ambiguity , 1968, American Journal of Sociology.

[16]  Policy on papers' contributors , 1999, Nature.

[17]  R. I. Gregerman,et al.  Parse analysis: a new method for the evaluation of investigators' bibliographies. , 1969, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Laurence W Wale,et al.  Individual contributions to multiauthor papers , 1983 .

[19]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Trying an authorship index , 1991, Nature.

[20]  D. Rennie,et al.  Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. , 1998, JAMA.

[21]  P B Moser-Veillon,et al.  Authorship: can you claim a byline? , 1999, Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

[22]  A. Regalado,et al.  Multiauthor papers on the rise. , 1995, Science.

[23]  Ermenegyldo Munhoz Junior Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas , 2006 .

[24]  A. Heffner Authorship Recognition of Subordinates in Collaborative Research , 1979 .