Abstract
Integration of Credit and Accountability Principles in Authorship Policies of Science Journals and Research Institutions
Mohammad Hosseini,1 Sofie Elaine Adams,2 Yensi Flores,3 Kathleen Hall Jamieson,2 Joerg Heber,4 Jennifer Heimberg,5 Véronique Kiermer,6 Arthur Lupia,7 Ana Marušić,8 Beau Nielsen,5 Magdalena Skipper,9 Geeta Swamy,10 Susan Wolf11
Objective
Although authorship is a cornerstone of the reward system of science, it is often fraught with disagreements and questionable practices.1 A working group (including authors of this abstract and additional experts) was convened in January 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Strategic Council on Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust to examine the impact of previous recommendations on institutional and journal authorship policies.1,2
Design
Our analysis consisted of 2 parts completed in 2024 and 2025. First, we examined authorship policies of the AAAS, AGU, APS, BMJ, Cell, ICMJE, IEEE, JACS, Nature, NEJM, PLOS, PNAS, and SAGE (represented in the group members who authored the NAS 2018 recommendation2) to examine the extent to which they had adapted policies. This review captured trends regarding authorship guidelines, use of ORCIDs, and the CRediT taxonomy. Second, we searched the websites of all R1 (very high research activity) institutions (search terms authorship, authorship guidelines, research guidelines, and research integrity) in the US (n = 146) to determine whether credit and accountability or responsibility were mentioned in authorship guidelines and, if so, whether they were cast as related concepts. We then checked whether guidelines included links to external instructions (eg, ICMJE) and encouraged meetings to discuss authorship. Both phases were followed by brainstorming sessions among working group members.
Results
Of the examined journal groups, 5 adopted ICMJE guidelines, 2 referenced the NAS 2018 recommendations, and others had different recommendations. Seven groups recommended using the CRediT taxonomy, but only 3 required ORCIDs for all authors. Of the 146 R1 institutions, 59 included a credit-accountability link in their guidelines, but in only 38 cases did the credit-accountability link appear at the top of the guideline. Guidelines of 60 institutions suggested authors meet proactively to discuss authorship.
Conclusions
Anchoring authorship in credit (give credit where it is due) and accountability (authors are accountable for the integrity of the work) principles2 readily explains why questionable practices (eg, gifts, ghost writing, and coercive authorship) are problematic and helps determine when authorship credit is warranted. Providing a clear description of contributions reinforces the application of these principles and fosters transparency as an important complementary principle.3 While journals should choose authorship guidelines that suit their context, encouraging the use of ORCID and taxonomies such as CRediT are beneficial. Aligning institutional guidelines with the credit-accountability framework offers an opportunity to improve authorship practices. We plan to engage with institutional leaders to explore ways to support these improvements (eg, by offering educational materials or courses, providing mechanisms to resolve conflicts, and offering a safe environment for discussing authorship).
References
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research. 2017; National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21896
2. McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2557-2560. doi:10.1073/pnas.1715374115
3. Allen L, Scott J, Brand A, Hlava M, Altman M. Publishing: credit where credit is due. Nature. 2014;508(7496):312-313. doi:10.1038/508312a
1Northwestern University, US, mohammad.hosseini@northwestern.edu; 2University of Pennsylvania, US; 3University College Cork, Ireland; 4Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US; 5National Academy of Sciences, US; 6PLOS, US; 7University of Michigan, US; 8University of Split, Croatia; 9Nature, UK; 10Duke University, US; 11University of Minnesota, US.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicting interests. Véronique Kiermer and Ana Marušić are members of the Peer Review Congress Advisory Board but were not involved in the review or decision for this abstract.
Funding/Support
This work is funded by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Mohammad Hosseini is funded by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UM1TR005121).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor
The funders have not played a role in the design, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, and views expressed here do not represent the views and opinions of the NAS, NIH, or US government.