1
The Norms of Authorship Credit: Challenging the Definition of Authorship in The
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
The practice of assigning authorship for a scientific publication tends to raise two normative
questions: 1) ‘who should be credited as an author?’; 2) ‘who should not be credited as an
author but should still be acknowledged?’. With the publication of the revised version of The
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI), standard answers to these
questions have been called into question. This article examines the ways in which the ECCRI
approaches these two questions and compares these approaches to standard definitions of
‘authorship’ and ‘acknowledgment’ in guidelines issued by the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). In
light of two scenarios and the problems posed by these kinds of ‘real-world’ examples, we
recommend specific revisions to the content of the ECCRI in order not only to provide a more
detailed account of the tasks deserving of acknowledgment, but to improve the Code’s current
definition of authorship.
Keywords: authorship, acknowledgment, credit, responsibility, accountability, ethics
2
Introduction
The practice of assigning authorship for a scientific publication tends to raise two normative
questions: 1) ‘who should be credited as an author?’; 2) ‘who should not be credited as an
author but should still be acknowledged?’ (Hosseini 2018). The ways in which these questions
are answered can impact upon not only the integrity of a specific piece of research, but the
practice of responsible research in general (Steneck 2006). Failing to answer these questions
in the right way, for example, by misattribution or the denial of authorship, can result in
authorship abuse. Indeed, some experts, who view misattribution as fabrication or falsification
of author contributions, have linked the misattribution of authorship to research misconduct
(Strange 2008; Marušić et al. 2011).
In this paper, we will, firstly, analyze the way in which authorship credit is specified in the
latest version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) and explain
how this account relates to the ECCRI definition of ‘good research’. Subsequently, we will
compare this account of authorship credit with those from the International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Finally, we will suggest how the ECCRI’s approach to attribution can be improved in order to
deal with some common issues faced by researchers in the sciences.
1. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Authorship and Good
Research
Two editions of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) have been
published. The first edition, published in 2011, was a collaborative effort between the European
Science Foundation (ESF) and All European Academies (ALLEA) (ALLEA 2011). In 2017, a
3
revised version of the code was published in an attempt to address “recent and emerging
challenges emanating from technological developments, open science, citizen science and
social media” (ALLEA 2017a, para. 1). As a supranational code of conduct (Drenth 2012), the
ECCRI is endorsed by institutions and academies of science from more than 40 countries
(ALLEA 2017b). More importantly, upon the publication of its first edition, it claimed to
“complement existing codes of ethics and may be fit, in some cases, to enhance or supersede
those already in operation” (ESF 2010, 6). Also, since it is considered to be applicable “to
research in all scientific and scholarly fields” (ALLEA 2017b, 3), it addresses challenges faced
by researchers of different disciplines.
The ECCRI defines “good research” in terms of four principles of research integrity:
● Reliability in ensuring the quality of research, reflected in the design, the methodology,
the analysis and the use of resources;
● Honesty in developing, undertaking, reviewing, reporting and communicating research
in a transparent, fair, full and unbiased way;
● Respect for colleagues, research participants, society, ecosystems, cultural heritage and
the environment;
● Accountability for the research from idea to publication, for its management and
organization, for training, supervision and mentoring, and for its wider impacts
(ALLEA 2017b, 4)
Furthermore, these principles apply to a number of different contexts, including “publication
and dissemination” (see Figure 1).
[Figure 1 near here]
4
The ECCRI provides eight prescriptions by which researchers should abide in order to produce
“good publications”:
(1) All authors are fully responsible for the content of a publication, unless otherwise
specified;
(2) All authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that authorship itself
is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant data
collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results;
(3) Authors ensure that their work is made available to colleagues in a timely, open,
transparent, and accurate manner, unless otherwise agreed, and are honest in their
communication to the general public and in traditional and social media;
(4) Authors acknowledge important work and intellectual contributions of others,
including collaborators, assistants, and funders, who have influenced the reported
research in appropriate form, and cite related work correctly;
(5) All authors disclose any conflicts of interest and financial or other types of support for
the research or for the publication of its results;
(6) Authors and publishers issue corrections or retract work if necessary, the processes for
which are clear, the reasons are stated, and authors are given credit for issuing prompt
corrections post publication;
(7) Authors and publishers consider negative results to be as valid as positive findings for
publication and dissemination;
(8) Researchers adhere to the same criteria as those detailed above whether they publish in
a subscription journal, an open access journal or in any other alternative publication
form (ALLEA 2017b, 7).
5
When it comes to answering the two normative questions posed at the start of this paper,
namely, “who should be credited as an author?” and “who should not be credited as an author
but should still be acknowledged?”, the second and fourth prescriptions are the most pertinent.
These stipulate conditions that need to be met to ensure that authorship and acknowledgment
statuses are assigned according to the ECCRI’s standards of “good research”.
2. Who Should Be Credited as an Author?
According to the ECCRI, “all authors agree on the sequence of authorship, acknowledging that
authorship itself is based on a significant contribution to the design of the research, relevant
data collection, or the analysis or interpretation of the results” [italics added] (ALLEA 2017b,
7). This suggests that an individual should be recognized as an author if (and only if) they have
made a significant contribution to specific tasks - research design, data collection, or analysis
or interpretation of results. Although traditional approaches to authorship tend to assume a link
between being an author and having a role in the writing process (Borenstein & Shamoo 2015),
the ECCRI does not make any mention of writing, drafting or revising the manuscript in its
definition of authorship. Accordingly, a contributor could be an author without taking part in
the preparation of the manuscript.
By contrast, the ICMJE, whose guidelines are those most commonly adopted by peer-reviewed
journals (Fong & Wilhite 2017), posit the following conditions for authorship attribution:
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition,
analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
