Authorship & Publication

Responsible Publication Practices and Authorship

Introduction

In this module, you will explore the following aspects of responsible authorship and publication practices:

  1. The significance and goals of publication
  2. Publication mechanisms and responsible practices
  3. The importance and guiding principles of authorship
  4. The definition and responsibilities of authors
  5. Responsible writing practices

Please note that throughout this module there are links to examples of concepts/issues within certain disciplines for illustrative purposes. The examples may not be relevant/pertinent to all disciplines, so individuals should check guidance specific to their discipline before proceeding.

Introduction (cont.)

This module consists of:

Introduction (cont.)

After completing this module, you will be able to:

Case Study

Click on the image below to read the case study for this module.

Significance of Publication

Publication of research and scholarship achieves two related goals:

  1. Disclosure: Making new findings or ideas available to other scholars and to the public, and establishing ownership/priority by communicating them in a formal, recognized way that becomes part of the permanent scientific record
  2. Dissemination: Communicating and sharing research results in ways that:
    • Allow the work to be fully evaluated
    • Enable others to replicate the work
    • Support the further development of knowledge

Significance of Publication (cont.)

Publication is the primary means by which scholarly work is made available to other scholars, industry, medical practitioners, policymakers, and the general public (sometimes via intermediaries such as science journalists).

Within academia, publication or its equivalent - such as musical performances or art exhibitions - is the most important measure of a researcher’s work, productivity, and impact. It plays a crucial role in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, as well as establishing one’s professional status and reputation.

Publication Mechanisms

A primary mechanism for disseminating findings is through publication in peer-reviewed professional or scientific journals.

Other dissemination mechanisms include:

Publication Mechanisms (cont.)

Forms of publications in journals include:

Responsible Publication Practices

Most professional journals and publishers have explicit editorial practices, a peer review system, and detailed requirements for manuscript preparation, submission, and citation format, as well as procedures for publishing corrections and retractions.

In 2015, Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines were proposed in Science in order to promote shared standards for open practices across journals. By encouraging journals to adopt these guidelines, the goal is to increase transparency of the processes and products of research and thus the integrity and reproducibility of research. 

Many journals and publishers also provide criteria for determining authorship; increasingly, they require a formal description of each author’s contribution to the work.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

Manuscripts submitted for publication should make a new contribution to the field of study rather than substantially repeat results from previous publications by the same or other authors. In some fields, replications of studies that are as close to the original study as possible may be published if the results differ from the original study.

All pertinent information or data for a defined project should be published in a single paper: manuscripts should not be fragmented into numerous smaller papers merely to expand the authors’ curriculum vitae.

The only exception to this practice is when two publications about the same project serve different audiences, for example a technical paper in a professional journal, and an article for a popular magazine discussing the same work. Publishers, however, must agree to a repeat or duplicate publication and the fact of re-publication should be stated in the manuscript.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

A manuscript should only be submitted for review to one publisher at a time, unless the publishers are aware of and agree to a simultaneous submission(s).

Many publishers either require that a submitted manuscript be accompanied with a statement that it is not under consideration by another journal at the same time, or include such a proviso in their guidelines to authors as a condition of submitting a manuscript to the journal.

If errors or important omissions are discovered during the manuscript review process, authors are obligated to promptly submit corrected information to the publisher for inclusion in the review process.

If errors are discovered after publication, authors must immediately inform publishers and promptly submit a correction.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

A preprint is a preliminary version of a scientific manuscript posted to an online public venue (server) prior to being submitted for formal peer review. Each manuscript is assigned a digital object identifier (DOI). Disciplines such as physics and math have used preprints for decades whereas other disciplines (e.g., biology, medicine, and chemistry) have started using them recently. A list of preprint servers is available here.

Authors may decide to use preprints as preprints enable them to:

Before publishing manuscripts as preprints, however, authors should check with desired journals’ submission guidance to ensure that they will accept preprints.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

All sources of financial support and affiliations that represent, or appear to represent, a conflict of interest must be fully disclosed at the time of presentation or publication according to organization/journal requirements. This allows readers to assess authors' possible biases.

These include, but are not limited to:

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

When entering into a contractual agreement to perform work, for example with a corporate sponsor or a state agency, authors should ensure that the contract does not restrict the dissemination of findings in any way. A delay of publication for 60 to 90 days, however, for a sponsor to review a manuscript is generally acceptable.

At the University of New Hampshire (UNH), the policy on Openness, Access, and Participation in Research and Scholarly Activities addresses dissemination of research results and scholarly activities. Requests for exceptions to the policy may be approved by the Senior Vice Provost for Research, Economic Engagement and Outreach (SVPREEO).

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

As part of the open science movement, there is an increasing emphasis on making the results of research publicly available, online, and free to the public.  This is known as open access.

The Open Access Directory and Open Science Directory are two sites hosting information about open access journals.  There is also an International Open Access Week to further share the potential benefits of open access.

Responsible publication practices require adhering to any sponsor or contractual requirements for dissemination of findings, including public access to articles arising from the project.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

In 2013, the federal Office for Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed each federal agency with over $100 million in annual research and development expenditures to develop a plan to increase public access to the results ~ digital scientific data and scientific publications ~ of federally funded research.

As a result most federal agencies require that research data generated or collected in activities supported by their funds be shared with others in a timely manner after the associated research results have been published or provided to the sponsoring agency.

For example, NASA requires that articles are made publicly available within 12 months of publication, and that data are made publicly available at the time of publication, or within a reasonable time period after publication, which is stipulated in the data access plan.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

The importance of publications and presentations in science and academia has led in the last two decades to a growth industry of predatory (aka fake, fraudulent, deceptive, or questionable) journals, publishers, and conferences

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines predatory publishing as, “…the systematic for-profit publication of purportedly scholarly content (in journals and articles, monographs, books, or conference proceedings) in a deceptive or fraudulent way and without any regard for quality assurance.”

Predatory journals or publishers charge researchers to quickly publish their manuscripts with minimal (if any) peer review whereas predatory conferences or meetings charge researchers to attend but there is little to no oversight of presentations and prominent scientists who are advertised as attending are not involved.

Responsible Publication Practices (cont.)

Researchers should avoid predatory journals and publishers because:

Resources to help researchers avoid predatory journals, publishers, and conferences include:

Principles Governing Authorship

The central role of publication in research and scholarship requires that authors preparing manuscripts:

Principles Governing Authorship (cont.)

The significance of publication means that authors have responsibilities to their:

Authorship practices are thus closely connected to issues of collaboration, mentoring, and responsible research conduct overall.

Principles Governing Authorship (cont.)

Authors are responsible for ensuring that both the process of preparing publications and the final results are characterized by:

Principles Governing Authorship (cont.)

Though authorship principles are constant, details of practice may vary between disciplines. Different fields and even different research groups may have different customs and practices about the order of listing coauthors, whether supervisors are included as authors on their graduate students’ papers, and other issues related to authorship.

It is essential that individuals understand and clarify such issues whenever questions may arise, for example when:

Definition of Authorship

Formal “authorship” refers to inclusion in the list of contributors to research and scholarship. Lists of authors are associated with oral and written communications of results and interpretations, for audiences ranging from colleagues to the public. Since much research and scholarship is collaborative, publications often list more than one author.

Authorship is the primary mechanism for:

An author willing to take credit for their contributions must also be willing to assume responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work as a whole.

Definition of Authorship (cont.)

Authorship credit should reflect significant contributions to at least one of the following:

Authors’ Responsibilities

Individuals listed as authors, and the order in which they are listed, should reflect the relative contributions to the work by the individuals.

It is becoming increasingly common to indicate that two or more individuals contributed equally to the work, even though one must be listed first. If the listing order of authors does not accurately reflect their contributions (as when contributions are equal), this can be indicated.

Authorship decisions should be based on individuals’ contributions to the work performed, not on their status or rank or other arbitrary criteria.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Because authorship is a valued commodity in science, individuals listed as authors may not have made a contribution to a publication warranting authorship. This happens for various reasons (listed below and on subsequent screens). Such practices are known as detrimental authorship practices because they misrepresent the contributions of the individuals added and of the actual author(s) responsible for the work.

Detrimental authorship practices also include denying authorship to individuals whose contributions merit authorship, either intentionally or by mistake.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Using generative artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools, such as ChatGPT, to help write scholarly publications is a controversial topic (see the Responsible Writing Practices section of this module for guidance). Whether such tools should be listed as an author is less controversial; currently, many publishers ban such a practice (e.g., Science, Journal of the American Medical Association Network). This position is supported by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Research paper mills are for-profit organizations that sell authorship of research manuscripts (ready to submit or already accepted) to individuals, often for a large fee. The individuals who write the paper are not listed as authors (ghost authorship). While sometimes the manuscripts report actual research, often they report fabricated or falsified research, plagiarize other authors’ work, and repeatedly use the same figures and tables across papers reporting on different data or experiments.

Jana Christopher (2021) lists the following as features indicative of manuscripts generated by paper mills:

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

The significance of the order of authors’ names differs among disciplines. In some disciplines, the earlier a name appears in the list of authors, the greater the implied contribution; in others, the order is reversed.

In some disciplines, the faculty advisor’s name rarely appears on a manuscript resulting from a student’s work, whereas in others the faculty advisor’s name is routinely listed. To avoid future problems, students and advisors should discuss current practice in their discipline and research group early in their research relationship/collaboration.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

“Author contribution” statements describe exactly what each listed author contributed to a publication. They offer a clear way to articulate the roles of different collaborators and are required by an increasing number of journals as a condition of publication. These statements serve as an important tool for clarifying individuals’ responsibilities and contributions in collaborative work, and are especially helpful when the work brings together people – and authorship practices – from a wide range of disciplines.

Some of the roles that may be identified by such statements are:

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) lists 14 roles that can be used to describe authors' contributions to a publication.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Some journals and institutions require that each author sign a statement attesting to having read and approved the final manuscript or to having made a substantial contribution to the manuscript. These practices, along with “Author Contribution” statements, help to ensure openness and clarity about the roles and responsibilities of each author.

Every listed author on a manuscript or other work should:

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

One individual, often referred to as the “corresponding author,” should take responsibility for overseeing the publication process, communicating with the editor/journal, and ensuring integrity of the final manuscript. (The corresponding author need not be the first author on the list.) This individual should also make sure all co-authors are informed and consulted as needed throughout the publication process.

The corresponding author may be asked by an editor or publisher to provide additional information to enable full evaluation of the manuscript, for example:

When authors submit articles to academic journals for publication, many times journals require authors to sign over copyright of the article to the journal.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

The “Acknowledgements” section of a manuscript provides an opportunity to recognize intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship, such as:

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Allocation of credit can be particularly sensitive when collaborations involve individuals at different stages of their careers, such as:

Differences of power and status among collaborators, as well as differences in their contributions and role in the work, can add to the difficulty of allocating authorship and other credit.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

The appropriate acknowledgement of scholarly/research contributions has important personal career implications as well as ethical implications for the profession as a whole. Thus, it is strongly recommended that all individuals proposing to collaborate on a project ensure that authorship criteria and decisions are:

An individual should only be listed as an author with their knowledge and permission.

If individuals’ contributions to the research or scholarship change, then the initial agreement should be revised in a timely manner to reflect the new allocation of responsibilities.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Many of the same responsibilities also apply to authors of abstracts and posters. Meeting abstracts, posters, and talks may also entail responsibilities such as:

The United Kingdom Research Integrity Office has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines for responsible authorship.

Authors’ Responsibilities (cont.)

Disputes about issues of authorship can become acrimonious, especially if a power differential exists between the individuals involved.

UNH has formal mechanisms to assist individuals with resolving such disputes. The first attempt to resolve the issue should be a frank and respectful discussion between those involved. If a dispute cannot be resolved among the individuals to the satisfaction of everyone involved, then it should be brought before the appropriate person(s) at a higher administrative level, in the following order:

  1. Department chairperson
  2. Dean of the appropriate college/school
  3. Executive Director of UNHInnovation

Responsible Writing Practices

When authoring publications and other scholarly outputs, writers need to adhere to the following principles of scientific writing:

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Full and open disclosure/reporting of information sources and potential conflicts of interest is central to responsible publication practice because it allows readers to assess authors’ contributions as well as possible biases.

Authors must cite all sources of information according to disciplinary standards and format, and in compliance with journal requirements. Failure to adequately cite information sources in publications may constitute plagiarism. Plagiarism is a form of scholarly misconduct and is defined as:

“The appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit” (OSTP, 2000).

When using information from published works in publications, authors must also comply with copyright requirements.

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

The complete and accurate citation of sources is critical to not only giving credit in the research record to the authors whose work has been incorporated into a manuscript but also to allow readers to access the sources, whether to become more knowledgeable on the topic or to check the accuracy of the work.

In the last decade, citations have become one metric used to measure research productivity (e.g., h-index). Along with other contributing factors, this has led to the development of citation practices that do not follow the standard for a discipline but instead manipulate citations to achieve an ulterior goal. Such citation practices are sometimes called detrimental citation practices. Ulterior goals may include increasing authors’ citations (either one’s own or those of another author) or to please a journal editor or peer reviewer.

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Researchers need to be cautious about the use of generative AI writing tools such as ChatGPT to assist with scientific communication.

Undoubtedly, generative AI writing tools may be a helpful tool for certain individuals, particularly those with limited English language proficiency for the communication of research and scholarship. There are, however, significant concerns about using such technologies for scientific communication, including, but not limited to:

All tools come with benefits and constraints. Buriak et al. (2023) present a comprehensive discussion of potential strengths, concerns, and current best practices for using ChatGPT in writing manuscripts.

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Researchers need to understand any constraints regarding the use of AI writing tools in the specific context, such as in developing manuscripts, publications, or other scholarly products or in their field generally. In addition to checking author guidelines for a specific journal or publisher, researchers should consult advisors, mentors, colleagues, publishers, or professional associations/societies for specific guidance or policies around the use of such tools in the specific context.

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

If in doubt about whether use of generative AI writing tools is acceptable in a specific context, researchers should be mindful of several of the core values of research:

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Detrimental citation practices include:

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Authors citing their own unpublished work must honestly describe its current status:

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

Another issue that may arise when authoring publications or other scholarly outputs is the appropriateness to reuse material from previous works and whether that reuse needs to be indicated in some manner.

According to the Text Recycling Research Project, text recycling is, "...the reuse of textual material (prose, visuals, or equations) in a new document where (1) the material in the new document is identical to that of the source (or substantively equivalent in both form and content), (2) the material is not presented in the new document as a quotation (via quotation marks or block indentation), and (3) at least one author of the new document is also an author of the prior document.”

Responsible Writing Practices (cont.)

The Text Recycling Research Project identifies four types of text recycling:

Whether text reuse is ethical, professionally appropriate, or legal depends on a variety of factors such as whether the source material has been published, who owns the copyright, who is the audience, whether there is an expectation that the document containing the reused text is making an original intellectual contribution, and whether the reuse is indicated.

Review Scenario 1 - Questions 1 & 2

Scenario: A postdoctoral fellow applying for jobs has published several research papers with his mentor, and some of his undergraduate research assistants are also included as authors. In listing these publications on his CV, he leaves out the other names, and lists himself as sole author. It was, after all, his project: his mentor was only included in the author lists because the work was done in her lab. The undergraduate students were included as a courtesy but suffer no harm from being omitted from the bibliography – while he stands a much better chance of getting hired if he has published a series of single-author papers. Which of the following statements are true?

1. It is okay to omit the mentor since her only contribution to the work was providing lab space.

Incorrect. The author list in the CV must match the list of authors on the published work. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.
Correct. The author list in the CV must match the list of authors on the published work. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices, and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.

2. The author list is a formal and unalterable part of the publication and cannot be altered retrospectively for any reason.

Correct.
Incorrect.

Review Scenario 1 - Questions 3 & 4

Scenario: A postdoctoral fellow applying for jobs has published several research papers with his mentor, and some of his undergraduate research assistants are also included as authors. In listing these publications on his CV, he leaves out the other names, and lists himself as sole author. It was, after all, his project: his mentor was only included in the author lists because the work was done in her lab. The undergraduate students were included as a courtesy but suffer no harm from being omitted from the bibliography – while he stands a much better chance of getting hired if he has published a series of single-author papers. Which of the following statements are true?

3. Omitting the other authors exaggerates the postdoc’s contribution to the work, denies them credit, and is unethical.

Correct. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices, and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.
Incorrect. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices, and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.

4. If someone reading the job application notices that the author lists have been altered, the postdoc may suffer serious damage to his professional reputation and possibly irreparable harm to his career.

Correct.
Incorrect.

Review Scenario 1 - Question 5

Scenario: A postdoctoral fellow applying for jobs has published several research papers with his mentor, and some of his undergraduate research assistants are also included as authors. In listing these publications on his CV, he leaves out the other names, and lists himself as sole author. It was, after all, his project: his mentor was only included in the author lists because the work was done in her lab. The undergraduate students were included as a courtesy but suffer no harm from being omitted from the bibliography – while he stands a much better chance of getting hired if he has published a series of single-author papers. Is the following statement true?

5. Since the undergraduates worked entirely under the postdoc’s supervision and are not likely to continue in the field, it does no harm to leave their names off the author lists.

Incorrect. Regardless of whether the undergraduates continue in the field, responsible publication practices require that their work on the projects (as reflected in each publication’s list of authors) must be reported accurately on the postdoc’s CV. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices, and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.
Correct. Regardless of whether the undergraduates continue in the field, responsible publication practices require that their work on the projects (as reflected in each publication’s list of authors) must be reported accurately on the postdoc’s CV. Such an omission is a violation of responsible authorship and publication practices, and distorts the postdoc’s contribution to the work.

Review Scenario 2

Scenario: A researcher is invited to join an ongoing collaboration on the basis of the unique expertise and skills he can bring to the project. The research group has already published several papers together (with various combinations of authors); they expect to be able to generate several more publications based on the work that will be possible thanks to the new collaborator’s contributions. What are some important steps the new person should take as he prepares to join the team (check all that apply)?
Correct. However, another answer exists.
Correct. However, another answer exists.
Incorrect. The researcher should only be listed as first author on publications where his contributions to the work qualify him for that recognition.
Incorrect. The researcher should only be listed on publications where his contributions to the work reported in that specific publication merit his inclusion as an author.
You have selected all of the correct statements.

Review Scenario 3 - Questions 1 & 2

Scenario: Three researchers collaborate on a project and agree to publish a paper together reporting their results. They share equally in the work of designing the study and collecting the data. When it’s time to write the paper, one researcher volunteers to serve as corresponding author and also to pull together the literature they need to cite; another says she’ll be happy to write the first draft, which the others can then revise; the third person wants to do most of the data analysis, but hates writing and would rather leave that part of the job to the others. Since none of them is any good at graphic design, they agree to hire a graduate student to prepare the figures for their paper. Which of the following statements are true?

1. The paper should include a section on “author contributions” stating each person’s role.

Correct. Even when not required by a journal, this is a recommended practice. These statements serve as an important tool for clarifying individuals’ responsibilities and contributions in collaborative work, and are especially helpful when the work brings together people and authorship practices from different disciplines.
Incorrect. Even when not required by a journal, this is a recommended practice. These statements serve as an important tool for clarifying individuals’ responsibilities and contributions in collaborative work, and are especially helpful when the work brings together people and authorship practices from different disciplines.

2. The person who worked on data analysis but did not contribute to writing the publication should be acknowledged, but not included as an author.

Incorrect. In addition analyzing the data, this person participated in designing the study and collecting the data. Therefore, he/she qualifies as an author.
Correct. In addition analyzing the data, this person participated in designing the study and collecting the data. Therefore, he/she qualifies as an author.

Review Scenario 3 - Questions 3 & 4

Scenario: Three researchers collaborate on a project and agree to publish a paper together reporting their results. They share equally in the work of designing the study and collecting the data. When it’s time to write the paper, one researcher volunteers to serve as corresponding author and also to pull together the literature they need to cite; another says she’ll be happy to write the first draft, which the others can then revise; the third person wants to do most of the data analysis, but hates writing and would rather leave that part of the job to the others. Since none of them is any good at graphic design, they agree to hire a graduate student to prepare the figures for their paper. Which of the following statements are true?

3. The corresponding author should be the first one listed on the paper.

Incorrect. The corresponding author need not be the first author on the list.
Correct. The corresponding author need not be the first author on the list.

4. Since the authors agree they all contributed equally they can flip coins to decide the order of their names on the paper.

Correct. It is becoming increasingly common to indicate that two or more individuals contributed equally to the work, even though one must be listed first. If the listing order of authors does not accurately reflect their contributions (as when contributions are equal), this can be indicated.
Incorrect. It is becoming increasingly common to indicate that two or more individuals contributed equally to the work, even though one must be listed first. If the listing order of authors does not accurately reflect their contributions (as when contributions are equal), this can be indicated.

Review Scenario 3 - Questions 5 & 6

Scenario: Three researchers collaborate on a project and agree to publish a paper together reporting their results. They share equally in the work of designing the study and collecting the data. When it’s time to write the paper, one researcher volunteers to serve as corresponding author and also to pull together the literature they need to cite; another says she’ll be happy to write the first draft, which the others can then revise; the third person wants to do most of the data analysis, but hates writing and would rather leave that part of the job to the others. Since none of them is any good at graphic design, they agree to hire a graduate student to prepare the figures for their paper. Which of the following statements are true?

5. The person who agreed to do data analysis (but hates writing) does not need to review the final draft of the paper before it is submitted if they are included as an author.

Incorrect. Every listed author on a manuscript or other work should review and approve material to be presented publicly or submitted for publication (including both original and revised versions).
Correct. Every listed author on a manuscript or other work should review and approve material to be presented publicly or submitted for publication (including both original and revised versions).

6. The corresponding author should take full responsibility for any revisions requested by the editor or reviewers.

Correct. It is the role of the corresponding author to take responsibility for overseeing the publication process, communicating with the editor/journal, and ensuring integrity of the final manuscript.
Incorrect. It is the role of the corresponding author to take responsibility for overseeing the publication process, communicating with the editor/journal, and ensuring integrity of the final manuscript.

Review Scenario 3 - Question 7

Scenario: Three researchers collaborate on a project and agree to publish a paper together reporting their results. They share equally in the work of designing the study and collecting the data. When it’s time to write the paper, one researcher volunteers to serve as corresponding author, and also pull together the literature they need to cite; another says she’ll be happy to write the first draft, which the others can then revise; the third person wants to do most of the data analysis, but hates writing and would rather leave that part of the job to the others. Since none of them is any good at graphic design, they agree to hire a graduate student to prepare the figures for their paper. Is the following statement true?

7. The graduate student who prepared the figures should be acknowledged, but not included as an author.

Correct. The “Acknowledgements” section of a manuscript provides an opportunity to recognize intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship, such as the graduate student’s paid contribution to this
Incorrect. The “Acknowledgements” section of a manuscript provides an opportunity to recognize intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship, such as the graduate student’s paid contribution to this

Review Scenario 4

Scenario: A problematic practice seen most commonly in the biomedical field is that of “ghost authorship” in which a manuscript is prepared by a hired writer who is not otherwise associated with the research in any way. The author list for such papers often includes individuals whose names lend credibility to the publication, but who may have played little actual role in the work and omits the name and role of the “ghost.” What is wrong with this practice, and why (check all that apply)?
Correct. However, another answer exists.
Correct. However, another answer exists.
Correct. However, another answer exists.
Maybe. This depends in part upon who the hired writer works for. If the ghost writer is paid by a company or other entity with a stake in the research, for example a pharmaceutical company that makes the drug under study, there is a conflict of interest. If the writer is employed by the authors, who do not themselves have a financial interest in the work, there is no financial conflict – though other problems remain.
Correct. However, another answer exists.
You have selected all of the correct statements.

Case Study Review

Click on the image below to see the case study that was presented at the beginning of this module.

Congratulations!

Once you have finished all of the review questions click ’Certify Completion’.

Certify Completion