research paper on co authorship

How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone’s Research Contributions Make It into the Paper

• Original Research/Scholarship
• Open access
• Published: 12 April 2021
• Volume 27 , article number  27 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Gert Helgesson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0075-0165 1 ,
• Zubin Master   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3462-4546 2 &
• William Bülow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5244-6878 3  

10k Accesses

6 Citations

52 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

While much of the scholarly work on ethics relating to academic authorship examines the fair distribution of authorship credit, none has yet examined situations where a researcher contributes significantly to the project, but whose contributions do not make it into the final manuscript. Such a scenario is commonplace in collaborative research settings in many disciplines and may occur for a number of reasons, such as excluding research in order to provide the paper with a clearer focus, tell a particular story, or exclude negative results that do not fit the hypothesis. Our concern in this paper is less about the reasons for including or excluding data from a paper and more about distributing credit in this type of scenario. In particular, we argue that the notion ‘substantial contribution’, which is part of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, is ambiguous and that we should ask whether it concerns what ends up in the paper or what is a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper. We then argue, based on the principles of fairness, due credit, and ensuring transparency and accountability in research, that the latter interpretation is more plausible from a research ethics point of view. We conclude that the ICMJE and other organizations interested in authorship and publication ethics should consider including guidance on authorship attribution in situations where researchers contribute significantly to the research process leading up to a specific paper, but where their contribution is finally omitted.

Similar content being viewed by others

Scientific authorship and intellectual involvement in the research: Should they coincide?

Gert Helgesson

Biomedical Authorship: Common Misconducts and Possible Scenarios for Disputes

Behrooz Astaneh, Lisa Schwartz & Gordon Guyatt

Authorship: from credit to accountability

F. Alfonso & Editors’ Network, European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Task Force

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Research typically proceeds in less predictable ways than we like to acknowledge. While a scientific ideal is that every part of a study is well considered and planned beforehand, and the research process thereafter mainly consists in performing according to protocol, a typical experience from the field is that such description is far from the truth. Planning and execution of plans are rarely that straightforward. To the contrary, many decisions are made along the way regarding both data collection and analysis: new experiments, comparisons, interviews, and surveys may be decided as the work proceeds, and additional analyses may be added to the ones originally decided upon. Sometimes these changes are driven by peer review. Some of the research contributions eventually pass critical scrutiny and make it into the paper, while others for one reason or another end up in the waste bin or are shelved for possible future use.

There may be positive as well as negative things to say about such practice in relation to the philosophy of science and meta science, relating to curiosity and creativity on the one hand and hypothesis testing and reproducibility issues on the other. Furthermore, some of the choices made regarding what results get included in papers may be objectionable from a research ethics perspective, such as excluding ‘negative results’ because they contradict the main results of the paper or are considered unworthy of publication, hence contributing to the positive publication bias (Chalmers et al., 1990 ; Connor, 2008 ; Dirnagl & Lauritzen, 2010 ). Other exclusions may be fully acceptable, based on estimations of relevance and the consideration that you cannot include everything in the paper if it is to be readable.

The present paper does not deal with what exclusions of research results are acceptable or not, but with a related issue, namely how to handle authorship attributions in papers where plans change along the way, so that some of the results derived are not included in the final version of the paper. This topic is a special case of the larger topic of who should be included as authors on research papers, which involves ethical aspects like appropriate allocation of credit in research (and, hence, fairness), transparency and accountability (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009 ). Given the frequency of authorship disagreements (Marušić et al., 2011 ; Nylenna et al., 2014 ; Okonta & Rossouw, 2013 ), this analysis is important also because good authorship practices serve to foster positive team dynamics and collaboration and are less likely to lead to authorship disputes, which could impact interpersonal and professional relationships and possibly lead to subsequent misbehaviors (Smith et al., 2020 ; Tijdink et al., 2016 ).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced the most widely acknowledged authorship recommendations, which serve as guidance for the biomedical sciences among other areas of scholarship (ICMJE, 2019 ). The recommendations provide a set of criteria that are jointly necessary and sufficient in order to determine authorship (see Box 1 ). While these authorship criteria have met their due share of criticism (Laflin et al. 2005 ; Osborne & Holland, 2009 ; Puljak & Sambunjak, 2000 ; Smith et al. 2014 ), we find them reasonable, although not flawless (see e.g. Helgesson & Eriksson, 2018 ; Helgesson et al 2019 ). We therefore treat the ICMJE criteria as the starting point for our discussion of whether granting authorship to someone can be justified even when that person’s specific contributions do not make it into the final version of the manuscript. However, the problem we have identified, having to do with the first criterion–that authors should have made a ‘substantial contribution’ to the work–is not clearly addressed by the ICMJE recommendations. In fact, the problem is overlooked by most suggestions for how to think about the allocation of authorship in co-researched papers (see e.g., Shamoo & Resnik, 2009 ; Hansson, 2017 ; Moffatt, 2018 ).

Hence, the aim of this paper is to determine, in relation to the ICMJE authorship criteria, how authorship should be handled in situations where researchers have contributed substantively to the research and drafting of the manuscript, but the results themselves are not included in the final manuscript. Before we discuss this issue in greater detail, we would like to flesh out the problem by providing a case.

A Case of Omitted Results

To recognize the problem we have in mind, consider the following case: Two senior researchers and three junior researchers work together on a study. One of the senior researchers take the main responsibility for conception and design of the study and assume the role of principal investigator (PI), while the other senior researcher helps substantially with suggestions and input regarding specific analyses, and also provides support in the lab, where the empirical data is obtained. The empirical work is divided among the three junior researchers Ann, Bo, and Choi in such a way that they are individually fully responsible for some part of the design and conducting the lab work, resulting in data collection, analysis and interpretation of results. As times passes, Ann, Bo, and Choi all spend many hours working hard and eventually deliver according to plan. When looking at the results and discussing the study further, all researchers on the team agree on the contents of the paper. It turns out that while the analyses made by Ann and Bo fit well with the final idea of the paper, Choi’s analyses fall outside the scope of the narrative eventually decided upon and are therefore at the end not included. This is where the discussion starts in the group. Should Choi be included as co-author? She will surely do her part in revising the manuscript and approve the final version to satisfy the second and third ICMJE criteria, but did she make a ‘substantial contribution’ to the work under the first criterion of the ICMJE recommendations? Choi has contributed to discussions throughout the life of the project at team meetings and did help in the design of her part of the experiments and conducted those studies, collected and analyzed the data, and helped interpret the results. However, she was unable to contribute to the overall conception and design of the project at this early stage of her career, similar to Ann and Bo. On an honest estimation, it can be concluded that she has not made a substantial contribution to the paper if the excluded results, her main contribution, do not make it into the final manuscript. So what to do?

Before we move on, let us notice that there are several possible reasons for not including Choi’s contribution in the paper. One reason could be that the quality of her work is too low. Another reason could be that her results are relevant but do not support the overall thesis of the paper–they are in this respect so-called negative results. As we have already indicated, omitting negative results might be problematic from a research ethics perspective, especially if the reason for omitting them is that they contradict one’s hypothesis. Footnote 1 However, another reason for not including Choi’s contribution could be that the results are taken not to be relevant (or relevant enough) to the paper eventually decided upon, meaning that her results helped shape the final story being told in the paper but were not being reported in the publication. For the sake of argument, our discussion in what follows assumes that the reason for omitting Choi’s contribution is ethically sound and does not constitute a research misbehaviour in its own right.

Substantial Contribution and Intellectual Involvement

As noted in the introduction, the problem we describe concerns the first ICMJE criterion for authorship. This criterion does two things: it tells us the broad categories of contributions that count towards authorship on the byline (conception or design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data), and it tells us the extent of contribution needed, namely that the contribution(s) have to be ‘substantial.’ For the sake of argument, let us assume that Choi’s research contributions would clearly have been substantial enough to grant a position on the paper if her data and analyses had been included in the manuscript. Now if they are not included, does it mean that Choi should not be listed as an author? And if she should, how is this compatible with the idea of a substantial contribution?

We believe that situations like Choi’s reveal that the ‘substantial contribution’ requirement of the ICMJE recommendations is not only vague in terms of what is required for a contribution to be large enough to be substantial (Cutas & Shaw, 2015 ; Laflin et al. 2005 ; Osborne & Holland, 2009 ), but also ambiguous in terms of what specifically counts as a contribution. In particular, we hold that we should distinguish between two interpretations of this criterion, namely whether it concerns a substantial contribution to what ends up in the paper or whether it concerns a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper . While Choi does not qualify as an author in the former sense, she might do so if we accept the latter interpretation of the substantial contribution criterion. The question remains which of the two interpretations of ‘substantial contribution’ is the most plausible one.

To be certain, making a substantial contribution is not enough to qualify for authorship according to the ICMJE criteria. Critical revision and final approval of the manuscript outlined in the second and third ICMJE criteria is needed as well. The critical revision requires intellectual involvement in the paper under production. Hence, intellectual involvement in the research at hand is part of the ICMJE authorship requirements (Helgesson, 2015 ).

Before returning to our case, let us first present and consider another one in which the main point is to clearly show that one might make a substantial contribution to the research of a paper without contributing to what ends up in the paper. Assume that a group is writing a paper on research methods for accomplishing X in the research field of Z . They proceed by examining all existing methods mentioned in the literature potentially relevant for the specific purpose at hand, dividing the work among them so that each researcher involved analyzes the same number of methods each. The results from the analyses of the methods found to work are described at some length in the final paper, while failing methods are merely mentioned (although they are as completely documented by the research group). Since it is not known beforehand which methods will work and which ones will not, each analysis will be equally relevant to the fulfillment of the aim of the paper–to clarify the best methods to accomplish X . If the research contribution is substantial, and other authorship criteria are fulfilled, all researchers should be included as co-authors of the paper irrespective of whether their method is presented in the manuscript or not. Hence, there is a case to be made that substantial research contributions sometimes should count towards authorship even if they are not represented equally in the final paper.

Fairness, Transparency and Accountability

As previously detailed, we believe that cases like Choi’s reveal an ambiguity concerning the notion of ‘substantial contribution.’ It might be understood as saying that what is required is either a substantial contribution to what ends up in the paper or a substantial contribution to the research leading up to the paper. If the first interpretation is correct, then Choi should be excluded from authorship, despite the work and effort that she has put into this collaborative work. If Choi ought to be included in the paper, which we think she should, this is because it is enough, with respect to the first authorship criterion, that she has contributed in a substantial and relevant way to the research leading up to the paper, even if her specific empirical contributions did not end up in the paper. We will therefore defend this interpretation of the substantial contribution requirement of the ICMJE recommendations.

Generally, there are two sets of reasons for caring about how authorship is handled when a researcher makes a substantial contribution that is not reported in the manuscript. First, it is a matter of transparency and accountability about the research process: what happened and who were involved? From this perspective, it is misleading if people who were deeply involved in the work are not described in the paper. Also for reasons of accountability, those responsible for the work should be identifiable to others. Admittedly, both of these aspects could be fulfilled by some other means than that of attribution of authorship, such as a sufficiently detailed description of everyone’s contributions, including those not included as authors. But with present practices, including someone as co-author or merely listing that person in the contributor list or acknowledgements communicates two quite different messages about the person’s contribution and its relative importance. Our argument here for the interpretation that what counts as ground for co-authorship is a substantial contribution to the research leading to the paper is that excluding Choi would be misleading about her role in the project, hence not fulfilling the need for transparency and accountability.

Second, authorship is a matter of due scientific credit and fairness, which to our mind provides a strong reason for including Choi. In particular, our argument for the interpretation that what counts is a substantial contribution to the research leading to the paper is that excluding Choi seems unfair. After all, Choi has contributed as much to the research leading to the paper as her colleagues. Admittedly, the aim of the paper shifted, or took a form that made Choi’s contribution less relevant to what was reported in the paper, but not less relevant to the end product leading to the research publication. Also, we should note that this interpretation clearly ties Choi’s claim to authorship to the good work she has done rather than to the results being reported only. In contrast, if what is required is a substantial contribution to the research presented in the paper, then it seems that whether any of the junior researchers end up in the authorship byline will be, to some degree, a matter of luck , since neither an initial agreement or great efforts along the way is sufficient. This too seems unfair. Contributing with a considerable amount of good work and then not receiving authorship because of a change of plans seems unfair in a vein similar to misuse of the ICMJE authorship criteria by letting people contribute substantially to the work, then not offer them the opportunity to revise, and finally not include them as authors since they do not fulfill all criteria (ICMJE, 2019 ).

Counter Arguments

There are several possible counterarguments to our thesis that should be addressed. First, it might be argued that Choi’s contribution is rather general in its nature, and hence should not count towards authorship. After all, authorship is not about general research contributions, such as having contributed substantially to a large research application providing financial support for the production of many papers (reaching a level of detail that the application did not), but contributions to the specific paper (Smith & Master, 2017 ). Similarly, being a member of the research group does not mean that one should be included as co-author on every paper produced by the group. Instead, you need to contribute substantially to every paper in order to be listed as author. However, one may agree with the general thrust of this argument without agreeing that it works as an argument against including Choi. That is because it is an open question what should be meant by ‘contributions to the specific paper’–is it what the final version of the paper contains or is it the work specifically concerning and leading up to that paper? It seems to us that the better understanding of ‘research contribution’ is the work and intellectual engagement contributed in the context of a study or project around a specified research aim and/or a set of specified research questions, rather than what of that work was eventually included in the paper–as long as the work, as it was carried out, was perceived by the research group as relevant to what they were doing.

Second, one might ask why it would not be enough if Choi’s contribution were recognized through an acknowledgement, especially if it contains a clear statement of her contribution. Important contributions that do not qualify for authorship are often handled that way, so why shouldn’t we think that it is enough in this case? There are two connected responses to this inquiry. First, as already argued, Choi has made contributions qualifying her for authorship. Leaving her out would therefore be misleading in the sense that it would give a false impression about the relative value of her contribution to the research. Second, it would be utterly unfair to grant her an acknowledgement if her colleagues, making contributions of equal importance (according to our reasoning above), are included as authors. Again, as discussed above, allocation of authorship concerns transparency and accountability on the one hand, and credit and fairness on the other. Acknowledgements contribute to transparency, but are useless from a career perspective in most, if not all, research areas, hence leaving Choi with an inappropriate credit for her work. Footnote 2

Third, there is a complication with our interpretation of the substantial contribution requirement that we may call the multiplicity problem . Imagine that the overall thrust of our argument was followed by the research group and that Choi was included as co-author in the paper based on her substantial contributions to the work with the paper even though her work was not presented in the paper. Further imagine that later on, the senior researchers find it a good idea to include the previously excluded work by Choi in another paper where it becomes more relevant. The work then included is indeed substantial, which provides an argument why Choi should be included as co-author also in this second paper. But doesn’t this amount to an unfair form of double counting? In response, we think that it might be acceptable to include Choi as co-author on both papers, insofar as she fulfills the following two conditions: the contribution under the first criterion has to be different in the two papers (which is not the same thing as saying that the contribution has to concern different data sets), and the other ICMJE authorship criteria need to be fulfilled in relation to the second paper as well. Admittedly, Choi was not part of the research process, and perhaps not intellectually involved in the questions particularly addressed in this second paper, at an early stage. But once included with her empirical contribution (originally omitted and hence different from her contribution to the first paper), she could engage in the larger questions of this second paper and could contribute intellectually as well. For example, she could participate in the process of revising versions of the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, as put in the second criterion of the ICMJE authorship criteria. If so, then it seems right that she is included as an author also in the second paper since she fulfils criteria 1–4 in relation to that paper. Footnote 3

But then there seems to be a further complication with our account that we might call the backfire problem (which is a counter argument to our response to the multiplicity problem). Again, assume that Choi was included as an author on the first paper where her work was not presented in the paper itself, but that the work has also begun with the second paper based on Choi’s contribution. Ann and Bo now enter the scene and ask why they are not included in the second paper–should they be? After all, if Choi ought to be included as an author on the first paper, on the basis that her work with the omitted empirical contribution was an important part of the research process leading up to the first paper, then doesn’t this suggest that Ann and Bo can raise similar legitimate demands on being included as authors on the second paper? In response, we suggest that the answer can certainly not be a general ‘Yes,’ but that their inclusion in the second paper is justifiable if they were sufficiently involved in the second paper to be correctly described as having contributed substantially to the process leading up to that specific paper. For example, the second paper might be a natural follow-up of the first paper, covering further issues already considered while they were working on the first paper. Footnote 4 However, it all hinges on whether Ann and Bo contributed substantially, in the sense we have defended in the above.

Before concluding we should make two important remarks. First, our arguments in response to the multiplicity problem has important implications beyond the case that we are focusing on here. For example, when a biomedical researcher builds a new reagent and publishes it, the original creator does not (or at least should not) receive authorship recognition each and every time the reagent is shared and used by other scientists in subsequent studies. The reason for this, or so we would argue, is that merely providing certain substances or data is not enough to qualify as an author. What is important is rather that one has contributed substantially in the research process leading up to the paper. However, allowing people to use one’s innovation over and over does not guarantee the type of involvement required for authorship in a specific paper. Second, the focus of this paper has only been on authorship attribution, but cases like the one we discuss here also raise issues about authorship order, which is a contentious area with as yet no uniform policy or practice which guides researchers (Helgesson & Eriksson, 2019 ; Smith & Master, 2017 ). Addressing this issue is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

Concluding Remarks

In this paper we have argued that authorship should be attributed to those who have made a substantial contribution to the specific research leading up to the publication, even if their particular contribution is not reported in the paper. Based on the principle of fairness and giving credit where credit is due, researchers who make significant contributions should be given authorship credit even if their contribution is not included in the final manuscript. We have argued that this practice is aligned with the most plausible interpretation of the first criterion of the ICMJE recommendations, and thus researchers should be afforded the opportunity to participate in fulfilling subsequent criteria including drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approving the final version of the paper, and agreeing to be accountable for the research. Based on our analysis, we suggest that ICMJE and others interested in authorship and publication ethics need to revise their proposals regarding authorship allocation for the sake of clarity.

As a suggestion for future research, further conceptual and empirical work in this area should examine and consider situations where substantive but excluded contributions deserve or not deserve authorship credit. While several studies examine gift authorship (e.g., Sauermann & Haeussler, 2017 ; Wislar et al 2011 ), less has been done to assess the nature and frequency of authorship exclusion, which is likely to be significant and affect those with less power in academic science (Cesi and Williams 2011; NASEM 2017).

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

There is much more to be said here. The handling of negative results has been discussed extensively in the research ethics literature, mainly in relation to selection bias when it comes to what studies get published and not. There are ethical issues involved here, relating to reasons for not publishing, such as researchers being misleading by withholding results, wasted resources, and introduction of bias into meta-analyses. The tendency to favor positive results is systemic (Chalmers, 1990 ; Duyx et al., 2017 ; Dwan et al., 2008 ; Fanelli, 2012 ; Song et al., 2000 ). Addressing these sorts of issues is beyond the scope of this paper, however, as our focus is to analyze the ethics of who should be included as authors in cases where not all work done has explicit impact on what ends up in print.

The fact that acknowledgements do not carry any weight from a career perspective might be a reason for ditching both acknowledgements and traditional author lists in favour of more detailed contributorship statements at the beginning of academic papers. Such a system would at best not only be more transparent, but also more accurate when it comes to the allocation of academic credit. That said, our argument here largely applies to the present situation, in which authorship is the norm.

We admit that our solution to the multiplicity problem still leaves open for disputes over authorship. After all, researchers might still disagree whether a particular contribution is sufficiently different from another one. That said, we still believe that what we say in response to the multiplicity problem is valid and should be adopted as a general starting point for how to handle this kind of disputes. Thus, we suggest that the principle is valid, even if the application of the principle can still be debated in individual cases.

We want to underline that we do not suggest that so-called salami-slicing should be acceptable. However, you do not get salami slicing just because you make more than one paper out of a data set. Salami slicing is if you separate your data into several papers merely in order to get more papers, not because it is justified for scientific considerations, such as making the content comprehensible and the story sufficiently clear for the reader to follow (not to mention managing limitations of space).

Chalmers, T. C., Frank, C. S., & Reitman, D. (1990). Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA, 263 (10), 1392–1395.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chalmers, I. (1990). Under reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA, 263 , 1405–1408.

Connor, J.T. (2008). Positive reasons for publishing negative findings. American Journal of Gastroenterology , Sep;103(9), 2181–2183.

Cutas, D., & Shaw, D. (2015). Writers blocked: On the wrongs of research co-authorship and some possible strategies for improvement. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (5), 1315–1329.

Dirnagl, U., & Lauritzen, M. (2010). Fighting publication bias: introducing the Negative Results section. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 30 , 1263–1264.

Duyx, B., Urlings, M. J. E., Swaen, G. H. M., Bouter, L. M., & Zeegers, M. P. (2017). Scientific citations favor positive results: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 88 , 92–101.

Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., et al. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE, 3 (8), e3801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003081 .

Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90 , 891–904.

Hansson, S. O. (2017). Who should be author? Theoria, 83 , 99–102.

Helgesson, G. (2015). Scientific authorship and intellectual involvement in the research – should they coincide? Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 18 (2), 171–175.

Helgesson, G., Bülow, W., Eriksson, S., & Godskesen, T. (2019). Should the deceased be listed as authors? Journal of Medical Ethics, 45 (5), 331–338.

Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2019). Authorship order. Learned Publishing, 32 (2), 106–112.

Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2018). Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility! Learned Publishing, 31 (3), 267–269.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed 2 Oct, 2020 at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

Laflin, M. T., Glover, E. D., & McDermott, R. J. (2005). Publication ethics: An examination of authorship practices. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29 , 579–587.

Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6 (9), e23477.

Moffatt, B. (2018). Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice. Accountability in Research: policies and quality assurance, 25 (4), 199–211.

Academy, N., & of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). . (2017). Fostering integrity in research . . The National Academies Press.

Google Scholar  

Nylenna, M., Fagerbakk, F., & Kierulf, P. (2014). Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics, 15 (1), 53.

Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13 (3), 149–157.

Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship?, and what should it be A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation . https://doi.org/10.7275/25pe-ba85 .

Puljak, L., & Sambunjak, D. (2000). Can authorship be denied for contract work? Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 , 1031–1037.

Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science . Advances, 3 (11), e1700404.

Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research . (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Book   Google Scholar  

Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18 (2), 199–212.

Smith, E., Hunt, M., & Master, Z. (2014). Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries. BMC Medical Ethics, 15 , 42.

Smith, E., & Master, Z. (2017). Best practices to order authors in multi/interdisciplinary health science research publications. Accountability in Research: policies and quality assurance, 24 (4), 243–267.

Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul-Hus, A., et al. (2020). Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (4), 1967–1993.

Song, F., Eastwood, A., Gilbody, S., Duley, L., & Sutton, A. (2000). Publication and related biases: a review. Health Technology and Assessment, 4 (10), 1–115.

Tijdink, J. K., Schipper, K., Bouter, L. M., Maclaine Pont, P., de Jonge, J., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. British Medical Journal Open, 6 (2), e008681.

Wislar, J., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ, 343 , d6128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

ZM’s involvement in this research project was supported by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002377 from the National Cancer for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS).

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. See Acknowledgements.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Biomedical Ethics Research Program and Center for Regenerative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Zubin Master

Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

William Bülow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Helgesson .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Helgesson, G., Master, Z. & Bülow, W. How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone’s Research Contributions Make It into the Paper. Sci Eng Ethics 27 , 27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00303-y

Download citation

Received : 02 October 2020

Accepted : 24 March 2021

Published : 12 April 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00303-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Authorship criteria
• Negative results
• Substantial contribution
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• About the LSE Impact Blog
• Comments Policy
• Popular Posts
• Recent Posts
• Subscribe to the Impact Blog
• Write for us
• LSE comment

March 29th, 2021

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship.

7 comments | 304 shares

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

Historically the single authored paper has been a mainstay of social scientific and humanistic research writing. However, co-authorship is now for many social science disciplines the default mode of academic authorship. Reflecting on this, Helen Kara , provides some key insights and advice for authors looking to co-write and co-publish in an ethical way.

Ethical co-authorship is rarely discussed by authors and publishers, and even more rarely by research ethics committees. Yet co-authorship is a notorious site for unethical practices such as; plagiarism, citation manipulation, and ghost , guest , and gift authors. For authors setting out on a collaborative writing project, two key aspects to ethical co-authorship need consideration: ethical co-writing, and ethical co-publishing.

Ethical co-writing

Being invited to write with one or more others can feel flattering and exciting. Hold on, though, because before you co-write a single sentence, it is sensible to figure out whether you can work well together and to ask yourself some simple questions. Do you share enough priorities and values? If so, do you have similar working practices, such as attitudes to timescales and deadlines? While diversity of authorship will bring richness to your co-authored work, you need enough similarity to ensure that you can work well together. There is no shame in finding you can’t collaborate with someone; it doesn’t devalue your scholarship or theirs. But, it is worth ensuring you make that discovery early, rather than after you have already invested considerable time and effort.

Agree on the format for the work, and who will take the lead on each section or chapter. Different people can have very different ideas about format and structure, and again it is worth establishing this at the outset, rather than ending up with sections or chapters of wildly varying lengths and structures. This won’t impress reviewers and will create an unnecessarily large amount of work at the editing stage.

If you want to have everything your own way – write alone

When you decide on deadlines, always build in contingency time. Things go wrong in people’s lives, particularly during a pandemic, and those affected need time to deal with their difficulties. Be willing to compromise or, in a group collaboration, to be outvoted. If you want to have everything your own way – write alone – though you will still have to deal with others, reviewers and editors; to adapt a famous saying, the sole-authored paper is dead.

Encourage your co-authors to adopt ethical citation practices. This means avoiding citation manipulation , i.e. excessive self-citation, excessive citation of another’s work, or excessive citation of work from the journal or publisher where you want to place your own work. It also means ensuring a good level of diversity within your citations. Who are the marginalised scholars working in your field: the people of colour, the women, the Indigenous scholars, the scholars from the global South, the LGBT+ scholars, and so on? Make sure you read and cite their work, engaging in co-writing can be an opportunity to reassess what literatures have become central to your research.

When you give feedback to your co-authors, make it constructive: tell them what they are doing well, what needs improvement, and how they can make that improvement. When co-authors give you feedback on your writing, accept it gracefully, even if you don’t feel very graceful. Respond positively, or at least politely, or at worst diplomatically. Maintaining relationships with your co-authors can be more important and may even take precedence over being right.

Do what you say you’re going to do, when you say you’re going to do it. If you have a problem that is going to get in the way of your co-authoring, let your co-author(s) know as soon as possible.

Ethical co-publishing

Academic publishing is troubled by ghost, guest, and gift authors, if you are in doubt, COPE provides a useful flowchart detailing these practices. Ghost authors are those who have contributed to a publication but are not named as a co-author, perhaps because they are a doctoral student or early career academic and a senior academic has decided to take the credit for their work. This is a form of plagiarism. Guest authors are those who have not contributed to the writing of a publication, though they may have lent equipment or run the organisation where the research took place. Gift authors are those who have made no contribution at all, but are offered co-author status as a favour. None of these practices are ethical. It doesn’t matter if some co-authors do more work than others, as long as everyone involved is happy with that, but you should be clear about each co-author’s contribution to the work , and outline that in a statement in the final draft.

Another ethical issue in co-publication is the order in which authors are named. This varies between disciplines. In economics, co-authors of journal articles are named in alphabetical order, while in sociology the co-author who has made the largest contribution is named first. Heather Sarsons studied this and found that the system used in economics has an adverse effect on academic women’s career prospects, while the sociological system does not.

Acting ethically while co-writing is easier than acting ethically to co-publish, because authors have more autonomy while writing

However, this does not mean the sociology system is perfect. What if two or three authors have contributed equally? An alternative option could be to write enough articles or chapters for each co-author to have first authorship on one of them, but this isn’t always possible or desirable. Some scholars use pseudonyms to ensure that equal contributions are recognised. Economic geographers Julie Graham and Katherine Gibson published several books and journal articles under the joint name J.K. Gibson-Graham , some of which were ‘sole’ authored and some with other co-authors. Geographers Caitlin Cahill, Sara Kindon, Rachel Pain and Mike Kesby have published together under the name Mrs C. Kinpaisby-Hill , and Kindon, Pain and Kesby have collectively used the name Mrs Kinpaisby. Professors EJ Renold and Jessica Ringrose work together as EJ Ringold.

This isn’t always an option, though, as publishers are not always happy to take an unconventional route. Book publishers for instance, will usually want as first author the person whose name they consider most likely to help sell copies. And, journal editors are sometimes reluctant to name participants who have co-authored journal articles, even when they evidently want to be named .

Acting ethically while co-writing is easier than acting ethically to co-publish, because authors have more autonomy while writing. Self-publishing may present opportunities for more creative representations of co-authorship practices, but self-published work is not generally valued by academia. Bumping up against the structures and priorities of big business, whether a publisher or a university, can make it more difficult for people to maintain an ethical course. Perhaps the most ethical option is to place work with a journal or publisher that is not for profit, so you are not contributing to shareholders’ dividends but to organisations that invest any surplus back into research dissemination.

To some extent, co-authorship is an academic virtue in itself. Co-authors learn from each other and help each other develop as researchers and scholars. Co-authored work is often stronger than it would have been if sole-authored. If we can also co-author ethically, that will further improve the quality of our collaborations and our outputs.

Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, or of the London School of Economics.

Image Credit: Adapted from Gordon Johnson via Pixabay.

About the author

Dr Helen Kara has been an independent researcher since 1999 and also teaches research methods and ethics. She is not, and never has been, an academic, though she has learned to speak the language. In 2015 Helen was the first fully independent researcher to be conferred as a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences. She is also an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the Cathie Marsh Institute for Social Research, University of Manchester. She has written widely on research methods and ethics, including Research Ethics in the Real World: Euro-Western and Indigenous Perspectives (2018, Policy Press).

Thank you Dr.. Kara for these ethical guideline. Best, Ayat

Really useful post, thank you. I’d add that when you co-author you’re penalised if you surname is lower down the alphabet, as you get relegated to et al. It means it can be more ‘political’ when negotating order of names as you have to request/ask/make a case to move into first position, when someone earlier in the alphabet can assume they will be first. Maybe I should change my surname to Awoodthorpe 😀

To add, you are penalised if your surname is lower down the alphabet when co-authoring, as you have to make a case/neogitate/request to move up the order or to first author. To do so can be difficult as you have to demonstrate that you did most of the work. Those authors who are earlier in the alphabet can expect to be first otherwise, and the quick interpretation is that they are the ‘lead author’ as everyone else is relegated to et al.

• Pingback: Quick Tips on Being an Ethical Co-Writer - Social Science Space

“It also means ensuring a good level of diversity within your citations. Who are the marginalised scholars working in your field: the people of colour, the women, the Indigenous scholars, the scholars from the global South, the LGBT+ scholars, and so on? Make sure you read and cite their work, engaging in co-writing can be an opportunity to reassess what literatures have become central to your research.”

What sound ethical framework demands that one cite works based on the immutable characteristics of the author?

Is this affirmative action of scholarship? One would think that, perhaps, we should cite authors based on their contributions to their fields rather than their skin tone, country of origin, anatomy, etc.

• Pingback: A Simple Guide to Ethical Co-Authorship | LSE Review of Books
• Pingback: Uitgelicht en gespot op internet (week 12 & 13, 2021) – Vincent Bontrop

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Related Posts

CRediT Check – Should we welcome tools to differentiate the contributions made to academic papers?

January 20th, 2020.

Book Review: Research Ethics in the Real World by Helen Kara

July 21st, 2019.

Writing for edited collections represents a model for a creative academic community unfairly rejected by the modern academy

June 12th, 2020.

5 Strategies for writing in turbulent times

March 30th, 2020.

Visit our sister blog LSE Review of Books

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CORRESPONDENCE
• 24 August 2021

First authors: is co-equal genuinely equal?

• Jonathan Kipnis 0

Washington University in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

‘Equal’ distribution of co-first authors on research papers should be a win–win concept — not just for those authors, but also for multi-disciplinary science. Yet some seek to reshuffle their respective positions on CVs for career purposes. How can we ensure that co-equal means genuinely equal?

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 596 , 486 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02310-2

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests

Related Articles

See more letters to the editor

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

‘Without these tools, I’d be lost’: how generative AI aids in accessibility

Technology Feature 08 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

How we landed job interviews for professorships straight out of our PhD programmes

Postdoctoral Associate- Comparative Medicine

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Group Leader at Católica Biomedical Research Centre and Assistant or Associate Professor at Católica

Group Leader + Assistant/Associate Professor, tenure-track position in Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Data Science, Engineering, related fields.

Portugal (PT)

Católica Biomedical Research Centre

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Locum Associate or Senior Editor, Nature Cancer

To help us to build on the success of Nature Cancer we are seeking a motivated scientist with a strong background in any area of cancer research.

Berlin, Heidelberg or London - Hybrid working model

Springer Nature Ltd

Postdoctoral Research Fellows at Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

ISM, based on this program, is implementing the reserve talent strategy with postdoctoral researchers.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

Page Contents

• Why Authorship Matters
• Who Is an Author?
• Non-Author Contributors
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

1. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

Editors should be aware of the practice of excluding local researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) from authorship when data are from LMICs. Inclusion of local authors adds to fairness, context, and implications of the research. Lack of inclusion of local investigators as authors should prompt questioning and may lead to rejection.

Because authorship does not communicate what contributions qualified an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. The ICMJE has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged—see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

Use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Next: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest

Keep up-to-date Request to receive an E-mail when the Recommendations are updated.

Subscribe to Changes

• New! Member Benefit New! Member Benefit
• Featured Analytics Hub
• Resources Resources
• Member Directory
• Networking Communities
• Advertise, Exhibit, Sponsor
• Find or Post Jobs

• Learn and Engage Learn and Engage
• Bridge Program

• Compare AACSB-Accredited Schools
• Explore Programs

• Advocacy Advocacy
• Featured AACSB Announces 2024 Class of Influential Leaders
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging
• Influential Leaders
• Innovations That Inspire
• Connect With Us Connect With Us
• Accredited School Search
• Accreditation
• Learning and Events
• Advertise, Sponsor, Exhibit
• Tips and Advice
• Is Business School Right for Me?

Ensuring Ethics and Integrity in Co-Authorship

• When faculty’s career progress relies on the number of peer-reviewed journal articles they publish, it can lead to unethical research practices such as gift authorship.
• Over the years, the number of co-authored research papers has increased considerably—a trend driven, in part, by the pressure on junior faculty to increase publications.
• To maintain the integrity of co-authored research, business schools can follow guidelines for authorship similar to those set in the medical and scientific fields.

  While teaching and service are important to a professor’s career, research is the true hard currency in academe—the familiar adage “publish or perish” remains very relevant. Endowed chairs and other special appointments are often based on research output above all else, while tenure and promotions most often depend on the number of peer-reviewed journal articles that professors have published. While there are questions about the overall value of peer-reviewed articles, they are nonetheless sine qua non for a successful academic career.

Faculty scholarship also is an important pillar of AACSB’s accreditation standards . Whether professors are categorized as Scholarly Academics (SA) or another category is based on whether they are engaged in research or activities that link them to practice. According to AACSB’s standards, “normally, a minimum of 40 percent of a school’s faculty resources are SA.” That means that consistent publication output among a majority of full-time faculty is essential for a school to obtain and maintain AACSB accreditation.

Many types of research are important to AACSB-member schools. For example, to fulfill AACSB’s Standard 9, which is dedicated to societal impact, a school’s faculty can publish public policy briefs, opinion pieces, and trade articles that have an impact on practice, regulations, or society as a whole. These forms of scholarship can have tremendous reach—more people will read an opinion piece in a newspaper than will likely ever read a peer-reviewed journal article.

One especially fruitful area of research—that both supports SA qualification and often leads to societal impact—is co-authored scholarship. Co-authored research is often a product of a vibrant academic culture. When professors are excited and passionate about their research, they are more likely to share ideas among colleagues and transfer knowledge from research findings to students, which can lead to more research collaborations. And when faculty within the same school co-author articles, they create a valuable cross-pollination of ideas and an even more collaborative environment.

But if professors employ unethical co-authorship practices, it can destroy collegiality and create an antagonistic culture. That’s why it’s important for schools and their faculty to ensure that co-authoring relationships remain ethical, transparent, and productive.

Criteria for Ethical Co-Authorship

Most business schools are already well-versed in using journal rankings, impact factors, and acceptance rates to determine the “value” of different research publications. Many schools use resources such as Cabells’ Journalytics to find legitimate peer-review journals, as well as its Predatory Reports to avoid journals that do not meet their publication quality standards and practices.

But academic administrators spend less time ensuring that their faculty follow best practices concerning publication ethics. This is true even though concerns about co-authorship are held across academia.

Over the years, the number of co-authored research studies has steadily increased . One reason for this trend is likely that increased publication requirements can lead to “senior faculty feeling pressured to ‘help out’ junior faculty members,” according to a 2017 article by C.W. Von Bergen, professor of management, and Martin Bressler, professor of marketing and management, both of Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant. Bergen and Bressler note that author inflation in the form of gift and guest authorship, in which a co-author contributes little to no work to a scholarly paper, is increasingly common.

An increasing number of journal editors are adopting policies to ensure co-authorship integrity.

Some discipline-based associations already have published guidelines discouraging this practice. For example, the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) lists four criteria necessary for ethical co-authorship. According to the organization, to be considered a legitimate co-author, a researcher must take all four of the following actions:

• Make substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
• Draft the work or revise it critically for important intellectual content.
• Give final approval of the version to be published.
• Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and ensure that any questions related to the work’s accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

“Contributors who meet fewer than all four of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged,” the ICMJE concludes. “Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.”

Although intended for medical journal editors and authors, these criteria have since been adopted by many academic disciplines and organizations. This includes the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is perhaps the largest organization providing guidance on publication ethics. A nonprofit organization with more than 12,000 members, COPE is more well-known in the scientific community, but it is increasingly serving as a resource for all academic fields, including business disciplines.

COPE sets out detailed guidelines designed to help authors and editors avoid misconduct related to publishing, intellectual property, conflicts of interest, and other publishing and post-publication policies. These guidelines are largely based on ICMJE’s four criteria mentioned above. In addition, COPE provides many cases, seminars, and webinars to help journal editors and academics ensure co-authorship integrity.

An increasing number of journal editors are adopting COPE/ICMJE policies to ensure co-authorship integrity. Journals and research organizations can modify these criteria as needed or adopt them completely.

Best Practices for Co-Authored Research

There are several ways that AACSB-member business schools can ensure that their researchers follow and understand co-authorship best practices. First, administrators should educate faculty on the best practices for co-authorship outlined by ICMJE and COPE.

Second, before beginning any collaboration, potential co-authors can prepare an agreement that outlines clear expectations of each participant. Such agreements help prevent conflicts or misunderstandings later on in the research process.

Co-author agreements outline clear expectations of each participant and help prevent conflicts or misunderstandings later on in the research process.

Biologists Richard B. Primack, John A. Cigliano, and Chris Parsons provide a template for a co-author agreement in a 2019 editorial (researchers can also find other examples online). Their template includes five parts:

• First, the co-author agreement should outline the project’s goals and vision, so colleagues share the same vision and understand the scope of the plan.
• Second, the agreement should clearly define the roles and responsibilities for all parties involved.
• Third, it should address contingencies for handling potential disagreements.
• Fourth, it should include rules for governing communication of the project to ensure transparent interaction among all parties.
• Finally, all parties should disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

The goal of such an agreement is to inspire trust among all parties, argue Primack, Cigliano, and Parsons. “Research tells us that trust is among the most important factors in successful collaborations—it is difficult for a team to succeed without it,” they write. “If co-authors do not trust each other, they can begin to question each other ’ s motivations and actions in every situation.” For this reason, any correspondence is best done in writing so that there is a record and contributors can review each other’s thoughts more carefully.

As research co-authorship becomes more prevalent in academia, the practice of gift authorship should be prohibited by all AACSB-member business schools. But when collaborating scholars set out clear agreements, contribute equally to the effort, communicate transparently, and remain accountable for their work, they can ensure that co-authorship remains an ethical and productive endeavor for their institutions, and for academia as a whole.

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, understanding co-authorship and managing it successfully.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 20 May, 2022

The last few decades have seen a shift in authorship patterns, from more of single-author papers to more of multi-author papers. Evidence-based research often requires larger data sets, frequently contributed by multiple research teams. The multi-authored paper now represents the norm , especially in STEM publishing. With more authors, however, certain questions arise that need to be tackled. In this article, we discuss the various intricacies involved in co-authorship.

Need for co-authorship

These days, research projects increasingly involve the accumulation of larger datasets, complex study design, statistical analysis and extensive coordination among numerous research centres. The greater the scope, complexity and multidisciplinary collaboration and involvement of a study, the greater the need for multiple co-authors. With numerous colleagues from diverse fields contributing to a study, r esearch papers are able to put forth stronger conclusions and tend to be produced more efficiently . Ideas are shared among multiple fields, and the scientific process benefits as a whole .

Dimensions of co-authorship

However, the ‘full flavour’ of co-authorship is more than merely indicating two or more people as authors on a paper. Authorship , or co-authorship, indicates many things:

• It shows who exerted substantial effort in the design , execution of research, analysis of the data and writing of the paper.
• It denotes ownership and responsibility for the content of the paper.
• In rare circumstances, (co-)authorship can implicate specific individuals if their research is determined to be spurious or inaccurate.

Deciding co-authorship

To determine precisely who should be listed as a co-author, what constitutes authorship and the order of authors, proceed as follows.

• The IFA will also indicate how many authors can be included for a given type of manuscript.
• Contributors who don’t meet the threshold for authorship can be listed in the Acknowledgements section .
• Consult with your department chair to determine their advice on order of author placement. 

Determining the order of authors

Co-authorship has some traditional conventions.

• Papers arising from Pacific Rim centres (or the Global East ) often place the senior author at the front, with successively junior authors (who often put in the most effort on the papers) afterwards.
• In the case of studies from the United States (or more broadly, the Global West ), the ‘main’ or ‘lead’ author is usually listed first, with the senior authors listed last.

Note : These conventions are constantly changing, and at the time of writing, there is no standard global guideline for listing the order of authors.

Best practices for managing co-authorship during submission and revision

• Before the paper is submitted to a journal, make sure all authors (and acknowledged contributors) are in agreement with the order of authors.
• Be sure to give credit to all appropriate study contributors by crediting them as authors or listing them in the Acknowledgments section . Be sure not to leave any significant contributors off the author (or acknowledgment) list, as adding authors after submission becomes a very difficult challenge.
• If at all possible, do not change the number or order of authors after initial submission . Do not add more authors or change the order of authors during the revision stage unless they are needed to conduct further experiments which require additional researchers.
• If you do feel the need to add authors, clearly indicate the addition and rationale to the editorial office when you resubmit the paper. Don’t give any appearance of trying to ‘sneak in’ a new author or two!
• Be very careful when using ghost authors to write your paper. Again, consult your journal’s IFA or contact their editorial office to determine correct protocols. (Having your paper edited by a professional copy-editor or editing service , however, is an acceptable practice.)

Follow these guidelines, and you will be celebrating with your entire author and research team when your paper is accepted and published!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Who gets the CRediT? Authorship issues and fairness in academic writing

Charlesworth Author Services 15/07/2019 00:00:00

What to include in your Acknowledgments section

Charlesworth Author Services 02/06/2018 00:00:00

Issues of Problematic Authorship in scientific publishing

Charlesworth Author Services 23/12/2021 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: Research and Publication Ethics: Module 1 – Conducting Ethical Research

Charlesworth Author Services 23/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: Research and Publication Ethics: Module 2 – Understanding Ethical Publishing

Bitesize Webinar: Research and Publication Ethics: Module 3 – Avoiding Plagiarism

Charlesworth Author Services 24/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: Research and Publication Ethics: Module 5 – Conflicts of Interest and Intellectual Property

Understanding and following the Information for Authors (Author Guidelines)

Charlesworth Author Services 12/01/2022 00:00:00

Collaborating in research: Purpose and best practices

Charlesworth Author Services 24/02/2022 00:00:00

Skills needed for Multidisciplinary Research

Charlesworth Author Services 07/12/2021 00:00:00

Office of the Provost

Guidance on authorship in scholarly or scientific publications, general principles.

The public’s trust in and benefit from academic research and scholarship relies upon all those involved in the scholarly endeavor adhering to the highest ethical standards, including standards related to publication and dissemination of findings and conclusions.

Accordingly, all scholarly or scientific publications involving faculty, staff, students and/or trainees arising from academic activities performed under the auspices of Yale University must include appropriate attribution of authorship and disclosure of relevant affiliations of those involved in the work, as described below.

These publications, which, for the purposes of this guidance, include articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication, presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding, must appropriately acknowledge contributions of colleagues involved in the design, conduct or dissemination of the work by neither overly attributing contribution nor ignoring meaningful contributions.

Financial and other supporting relationships of those involved in the scholarly work must be transparent and disclosed in publications arising from the work.

Authorship Standards

Authorship of a scientific or scholarly paper should be limited to those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful and substantive way to its intellectual content. All authors are responsible for fairly evaluating their roles in the project as well as the roles of their co-authors to ensure that authorship is attributed according to these standards in all publications for which they will be listed as an author.

Requirement for Attribution of Authorship

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. All co-authors should have been directly involved in all three of the following:

• planning and contribution to some component (conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation) of the work which led to the paper or interpreting at least a portion of the results;
• writing a draft of the article or revising it for intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published.  All authors should review and approve the manuscript before it is submitted for publication, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. This guidance is intended to allow for such variation to disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Lead Author

The first author is usually the person who has performed the central experiments of the project. Often, this individual is also the person who has prepared the first draft of the manuscript. The lead author is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all other authors meet the requirements for authorship as well as ensuring the integrity of the work itself. The lead author will usually serve as the corresponding author.

Co-Author(s)

Each co-author is responsible for considering his or her role in the project and whether that role merits attribution of authorship. Co-authors should review and approve the manuscript, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

External Collaborators, Including Sponsor or Industry Representatives

Individuals who meet the criteria for authorship should be included as authors irrespective of their institutional affiliations. In general, the use of “ghostwriters” is prohibited, i.e., individuals who have contributed significant portions of the text should be named as authors or acknowledged in the final publication. Industry representatives or others retained by industry who contribute to an article and meet the requirements for authorship or acknowledgement must be appropriately listed as contributors or authors on the article and their industry affiliation must be disclosed in the published article.

Acknowledgements

Individuals who do not meet the requirements for authorship but who have provided a valuable contribution to the work should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication.

Courtesy or Gift Authorship

Individuals do not satisfy the criteria for authorship merely because they have made possible the conduct of the research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. Under no circumstance should individuals be added as co-authors based on the individual’s stature as an attempt to increase the likelihood of publication or credibility of the work. For example, heading a laboratory, research program, section, or department where the research takes place does not, by itself, warrant co-authorship of a scholarly paper. Nor should “gift” co-authorship be conferred on those whose only contributions have been to provide, for example, routine technical services, to refer patients or participants for a study, to provide a valuable reagent, to assist with data collection and assembly, or to review a completed manuscript for suggestions. Although not qualifying as co-authors, individuals who assist the research effort may warrant appropriate acknowledgement in the completed paper.

Senior faculty members should be named as co-authors on work independently generated by their junior colleagues only if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the experimental design, interpretation of findings and manuscript preparation.

Authorship Disputes

Determinations of authorship roles are often complex, delicate and potentially controversial. To avoid confusion and conflict, discussion of attribution should be initiated early in the development of any collaborative publication. For disputes that cannot be resolved amicably, individuals may seek the guidance of the dean of their school or the cognizant deputy provost in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences.

Disclosure of Research Funding and Other Support

In all scientific and scholarly publications and all manuscripts submitted for publication, authors should acknowledge the sources of support for all activities leading to and facilitating preparation of the publication or manuscript, including, but not limited to:

• grant, contract, and gift support;
• salary support if other than institutional funds. Note that salary support that is provided to the University by an external entity does not constitute institutional funds by virtue of being distributed by the University; and
• technical or other support if substantive and meaningful to the completion of the project.

Disclosure of Financial Interests and External Activities

Authors should fully disclose related financial interests and outside activities in publications (including articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication), presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding.

In addition, authors should comply with the disclosure requirements of the University’s Committee on Conflict of Interest.

Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”

With an increasing number of researchers and graduates chasing publication opportunities under the pressure of “ publish or perish ,” many are settling for participation in multiple author projects as the first step in building a track record of publications. Over time, the trend of multiple authorship has grown from 3–4 authors of a paper to 6 or more. As those numbers grow, the potential for confusion over responsibilities, accountabilities, and entitlements grows in parallel.

The term “multiple authorship” can be misleading, since the degree to which the workload is apportioned can depend on rank, experience, and expertise. Some participants will earn a place on the team solely on the basis of rank, with the hope that their presence will improve the team’s chances of getting accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. Others will be invited because they authored the original study design, provided the dataset for the study, or even provided the institutional research facilities.

Layers of Authorship

When there are only three or four members on a research paper team, the workload should be fairly easy to divide up, with a corresponding designation of one lead author and two or three co-authors . However, when the size of the team increases, a point is reached when co-authors become contributors. The perception of these titles can vary. New researchers who aspire to official authorship status may see the title of “contributor” as a relegation or demotion in rank, but for other, more experienced researchers, it may simply be a pragmatic recognition of the fact that you may have provided valuable resources but didn’t actually contribute to the writing or editing of the research paper.

Academic Misconduct

The danger in opening up another level of authorship is that journals are now given the opportunity to stuff papers with a few extra authors.

Related: Confused about assigning authorship to the right person? Check out this post on authorship now!

If the journal’s conduct has been flagged as being questionable to begin with—charging high article processing fees (APFs) for publication, delivering suspiciously short turnaround times for peer reviews—how far can they be from colluding with editors to add on a few contributors who had nothing to do with the research paper at all?

Contributorship Statements

As the development of larger research teams or collaborative authorship teams continues, the opportunities for new researchers to get published will hopefully increase too. However, the opportunity should never be looked upon as just getting your name added to the list of collaborators because being on that list comes with responsibilities. For example, if the peer review process flags problems with the data, who will be tasked with responding to that? If the reviewers request a partial re-write and re-submission , who will be tasked with delivering on those requests?

The larger the team, the greater the need for a detailed written agreement that allocates clear responsibilities both pre- and post-submission. This would fulfill two important tasks. First, everyone would know what is expected of them and what the consequences would be for not delivering on those expectations. Second, when the paper is accepted for publication, the agreement could be summarized as a contributorship statement , so that readers are given a clear picture of who did what. In addition, as this trend of multiple authorship continues, grant and tenure committees are starting to request clarification of publication claims, and such a statement would help to delineate precisely what you contributed to the paper.

Hello, How to cite the article of Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”? Warm regards

Thank you for sharing your query on our website. Since we are not aware of the writing style format of the research paper concerned, we would suggest you to refer to the following website : https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website . Accordingly you can choose the style, add the article link and create the relevant citation format for the paper. Please note that proper acknowledgement and citation of the reference is necessary to avoid any issues of plagiarism.

Let us know in case of any other queries.

An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your website.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

How Can Researchers Work Towards Equal Authorship

In the past, authorship lacked a clear set of guidelines and sometimes excluded individuals who…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Insights into Assigning Authorship and Contributorship, and Open Access Publishing

ICMJE guidelines on authorship Avoiding authorship dilemma Overview of Open Knowledge Significance of open data…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Ethics

Should First Authors Be Responsible for Scientific Misconduct?

You can also listen to this article as an audio recording. Scientific misconduct is a…

• Global Japanese Webinars

誰を論文の著者や貢献者とするか ― 研究者のためのオーサーシップ基礎知識

著者と貢献者の違い 何人まで著者として記載できるか 責任著者および共著者となれる条件 著者のためのリソース

学术作者和贡献者署名要怎么写

ICMJE 准则 谁有资格被列为作者 作者名单应该要多长 共同作者与第一作者

What You Must Know While Assigning Authorship to Your Manuscript

Authorship and Contributorship in Scientific Publications

Experts’ Take: Giving Proper Credit in Multi-authored Publications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

Co-authorship guidelines to successfully co-author a scientific paper

Collaborating on research and co-authoring a scientific journal paper is a common practice in academia. For early career scholars, co-authorship can be a great stepping stone. Five concrete co-authorship guidelines can prevent conflicts and frustrations while co-authoring academic papers.

Why co-authorship can be challenging for early career researchers

Guideline 1: agree on the order of authors in a co-authored publication, guideline 2: share expectations and divide tasks during co-authorship, guideline 3: set up a realistic timeline for co-authored publications, guideline 4: avoid conflicts with co-authors with regular check-ins, guideline 5: be aware of the co-authorship ‘publishing etiquette’.

The internet (and academic twitter) is full of these stories: young scholars are not being credited for their work. Young scholars slaving away for someone else’s academic recognition. Young scholars have severe conflicts with co-authors which triggers various mental health issues.

Co-authorship involves close collaboration, in an otherwise busy and competitive environment. Different working styles, different priorities and power relationships between authors provide a breeding ground for frustrations and conflicts.

Unexpected challenges can arise in co-authorship. And there are some things that one cannot anticipate.

However, there are a few tips and tricks to prevent conflicts. The following five guidelines are particularly important for early career researchers to ensure that they are not getting the short end of the stick during co-authorship.

Before embarking on a co-authored paper, sit together with your co-author/s to discuss the order of names in the final paper.

More established scholars might tell you that it does not matter who is the first and second author. But it does matter!

When competing for academic jobs, a strong emphasis will be on your publications. And on whether you are the first author (e.g. leading the paper) or not.

It might be an uncomfortable question to ask who is going to be the first and second author (or third and fourth), especially as the most junior person in a team. But there is a relatively comfortable way out:

Approach your co-author/s and say that you have a lot of things going on, but that you are committed to your collaborative paper. However, therefore you would like to know who is taking the lead in the paper and who is going to be the first author.

This information will help you to plan your time properly in the coming months.

In addition to discussing the author’s order, you should discuss expectations early on.

Co-authorship can take many different forms. Not discussing it before the whole process starts can be the source of many frustrations.

Some co-authors “split” a paper into concrete tasks. For example, one person (usually the leading author) is setting up the framework and writes the theoretical part. The other then fills in the empirical analysis.

Some co-authors work together on every single part. Thus, they communicate much more often and work in a more integrated way. If that is the case, how do you edit each others’ work? Is it okay to rewrite sections? Do you use track changes? Or if you disagree with a section, do you set up a meeting to discuss it first?

All these questions should be discussed openly. Again, these questions are not stupid to ask. Especially as an early career scholar. You can stress that you want to do your best in this project, and therefore would like clarity when it comes to expectations and task divisions.

A timeline, and proper time planning, are necessary for co-authored papers.

Many academics have various things going on. Some will have heavy teaching periods that will limit their research time in specific months. Talk about it.

Furthermore, be realistic. Co-authored papers take time and are usually not written in a week. Try to find a timeline that suits all authors. And leave in some ‘buffers’, especially if you have to meet submission deadlines.

Buffers and flexibility are key in paper writing. Sometimes, things just don’t work out. Maybe the experiment failed. Maybe not enough interviewees could be reached. Maybe you are just tired and your brain is struggling with writing.

It is normal, it happens. What you need is real-time planning, taking these potential obstacles into account.

Writing papers, similar to much academic work, is a dynamic process. Very often, it does not go completely as planned. Things might change, and you should regularly check in with your co-authors.

Check-ins should focus on content and collaboration.

First, content updates are important. Imagine that the person writing the literature review finds a groundbreaking article and changes the analytical framework. The person writing the empirical analysis has to implement changes as well.

The second is collaboration. Check-in with your co-author/s once in a while to ask if they are still happy with the division of tasks. Are they okay with the time they spend on the paper? Do they feel that everyone is contributing their fair share to the paper? Do you need to alter the author’s order?

Finally, whatever you do, follow the publishing etiquette. E.g. the basic rules and behaviour that should be central in all forms of collaborative publishing:

• Be polite. Similar to writing article reviews for academic journals, feedback to your co-authors should be constructive and kind !
• Do not make fundamental changes to the paper without your co-authors’ consent!
• Do not change the author order without discussing it with your co-authors first!
• Do not single-handedly decide on a journal for submission!
• Do not submit a co-authored article without the consent of your co-authors!

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox!

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Establishing an all-round academic profile

Simple strategies to network at academic conferences, related articles.

Energy management in academia

13 great academic phrases to write your discussion (+ published examples)

How to write a convincing research statement

How to introduce yourself in a conference presentation (in six simple steps)

MSK Library Blog

Sharing research, resources & news.

Posts are written by library staff and reflect their personal opinions not necessarily those of MSK.

What’s the Deal with Co-First/Equal Authorship on Papers?

Co-First/Equal authorship is when two or more individuals are noted as providing the same or equal contribution(s) to a published work. To find this information in a full text or PDF article, first locate the article in PubMed (or another database ), link to the publisher’s site (using the buttons in the upper right corner of a record), download the full text where possible, and check both the “Author Affiliation” and “Footnotes” sections (if one exists) to see if there is any mention of co-first/equal authorship for the research—this is where this information is usually listed.

Here’s an example of co-first authorship on a paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000396 . Notice the CO icon next to each of the first authors—hover over this icon to see a complete description.

Here’s an example of equal authorship on a paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2007/11/08/science.1151710.full.pdf . Notice the information listed for those author names containing a superscript of 9, 10, 11, or 12—“ 9 These authors contributed equally to this work. 10 These authors contributed equally to this work. 11 These authors contributed equally to this work. 12 These authors contributed equally to this work.”

You can learn more about co-first/equal authorship contributions from these articles:

• “Equal” Contributions and Credit: An Emerging Trend in the Characterization of Authorship (2010)  – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2953548/
• Increased co-first authorships in biomedical and clinical publications: a call for recognition (2013) – http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2013/07/09/fj.13-235630.full.pdf

We would be happy to answer any questions about co-first/equal authorship that you may have, just ask us !

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Guidelines on authorship and acknowledgement.

Disagreements may arise regarding who should be named as an author or contributor to intellectual work and the order in which individuals should be listed. These Guidelines are meant to serve as a set of standards that are shared by the academic community as a whole in order to help facilitate open communication through the adherence to common principles.  These principles apply to all intellectual products, whether published or prepared for internal use or for broad dissemination. For a printable pdf of these guidelines, please click here .

Applicability

These Guidelines apply to all faculty, students postdoctoral researchers, and staff. Ownership of research data and materials resulting from Harvard University (“University”) research activities rests with the University (see Research Data Ownership Policy ). 

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research, whether in a peer-reviewed journal or in an open access e-print or pre-print repository (e.g., arXiv, PsyArXiv), is a shared responsibility of all research team members but is primarily the responsibility of the Principal Investigator. The University recognizes that there are different standards across disciplines regarding authorship and the order in which authors are listed or acknowledged. Additionally, journals often specify their requirements in their guidance for authors and require attestations regarding individual authors intellectual contributions to the work. As a result, each laboratory, department, and/or school should engage in conversations regarding their own discipline-specific standards of authorship and, if needed, are encouraged to supplement the Guidelines herein with a description of these respective discipline-specific processes for deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors will be listed.

Note that these Guidelines are not intended for allegations related to research misconduct, defined as fabrication or falsification of data or plagiarism, which are subject to the Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research and reviewed by the Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC).  

Criteria for Authorship

FAS and SEAS recommend that authorship consider the following criteria [1] ;

• Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND
• To have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND
• To have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to help ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved..

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. Many journals have adopted discipline-specific standards. The University expects that researchers will act in accordance with accepted practice of the relevant research community. This Guidance is intended to allow for such variation of best practices within a specific discipline, while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Acknowledgment Versus Authorship

Financial sponsorship or donation of gift funding does not constitute criteria for authorship. Individuals who do not meet the recommended requirements for authorship, but have provided a valuable contribution to the work, should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication. Authorship should not be conferred on those who have not made intellectual contributions to the work, or whose intellectual contributions are limited.

Implementation

Implementation of these Guidelines should include a commitment to collegiality, open communication, and expectation-setting throughout the research and scholarly process as well as the following considerations (see Authorship Best Practices Guidance (Addendum A) and Authorship Discussion Tool (Addendum B):

• Research groups should discuss authorship credit/criteria, presentation of joint work, and future direction of the research as early as practical, frequently during the course of their work, and as research team members begin or end their involvement. The Principal Investigator should initiate these discussions; however, any collaborator should feel free to raise questions or seek clarity throughout the course of the collaboration. Each lab or group may consider having a written document in place as guidance.
• All members of the research team are expected to adhere to good laboratory practices including maintaining an accurate laboratory notebook and annotating electronic files, as these practices will aide in identifying and clarifying individuals’ contributions to a project.
• Disposition of collaborative data and research materials should be mutually agreed upon among collaborators as early as practical and in accordance with any data-sharing and retention requirements.
• Laboratories, departments, centers, and programs supporting scholarly work should have available these Guidelines and a description of their discipline-specific processes of determining who should be an author, and the order in which authors are listed. These Guidelines should be included in the orientation of new research team members.

Authorship Disputes and Resolution

Disputes over authorship are best settled by the authors themselves; however, conflicts related to authorship may arise at any time during the research or scholarly process, resulting from differing perceptions of one’s contributions and resulting attribution of credit. It is expected that the resolution of disputes among collaborators will occur through open and collegial discourse, and mutual agreement is strongly encouraged. To facilitate this process, any prior decisions or discussions among authors, including verbal or written agreements between coauthors, should be reviewed and considered. These Guidelines and any documented customary practices in the relevant discipline should be applied, as appropriate. The authors should utilize the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) in order to guide authors through a robust series of questions that can be jointly discussed by the authors in an effort to resolve the dispute.  Extending an invitation to a mutually agreed-upon party outside the group who is familiar with publication norms in the field to informally serve as a neutral facilitator may ensure that all viewpoints are considered and objectively applied. It is expected that most disputes will be resolved collegially among collaborators. Should an authorship dispute arise that includes a question of the veracity of underlying data supporting a manuscript or the misappropriation of the work of others , consultation with the Research Integrity Officer may be helpful to support resolution.

If the dispute cannot be resolved at the local level, it is the responsibility of the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair or their designee to take the lead in effecting a resolution of the dispute, assuming that the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair is not a direct party to the dispute and does not have a conflict of interest.

If strenuous, good faith efforts to resolve the dispute utilizing the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) are unsuccessful, one or more of the parties may then contact their FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean, sharing the completed  Addendum B, which records the nature of the dispute and the efforts undertaken, and requesting further consideration. The FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean will review the submitted information and determine whether or not to appoint a committee to examine the case. As necessary, the Dean(s) will appoint a committee (and designate a committee chair), in consultation with the relevant FAS department(s)/SEAS area(s). The committee will consist of the following:

• A[n additional] faculty member from the field or fields relevant to the dispute
• Two faculty members from an adjacent field/department/area

FAS/SEAS Research Integrity Officer

• If the case involves a graduate student, an appropriate (non-student) representative from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• If the case involves a postdoctoral researcher, an appropriate (non-postdoctoral) representative from the FAS Office of Postdoctoral Affairs

The committee will review the case and develop a recommendation to make to the authors. The committee chair will first inform the FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean of this recommendation and then inform the authors.

Related Resources

University Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property (IP Policy)

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Office of Student Affairs

Harvard Ombuds Office

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Authorship Resources

FAS/SEAS Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Harvard Medical School Authorship Guidelines

[1] As published in McNutt et al., Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) March 13, 2018 115 (11) 2557-2560. These criteria were adapted from the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) framework for broader applicability across scientific fields.

Filter by Policy Area

• Faculty Research Policies
• Effort Policies
• Research Compliance Policies
• Research Finances Policies
• Proposal Submission Policies

Filter by Policy Type

• FAS Policies
• University Policies

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, bibliometric and visualized analysis of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens research between 2003 and 2023.

• 1 Department of Ophthalmology, The Third People’s Hospital of Dalian, Dalian, China
• 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Dalian Municipal Eye Hospital, Dalian, China
• 3 Liaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Cornea and Ocular Surface Diseases, Dalian, China
• 4 Liaoning Provincial Optometry Technology Engineering Research Center, Dalian, China

Introduction: Myopia is causing a major public health concern, with its prevalence increasing globally. This study aimed to discuss posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) research publication trends and hotspots over the past 20 years.

Methods: Bibliometric analysis was performed using the Web Science Core Collection to investigate posterior-chamber pIOL research publication trends. The extracted records were analyzed, and a knowledge map was built using VOSviewer v.1.6.20. The analysis included visualizing the annual publication count, countries/regions distribution, international and institutional collaborations, author productivity, and journal contribution, in addition to identifying knowledge bases and hotspots. Burst keywords were extracted using CiteSpace v.6.1.R.

Results: In total, 791 articles on posterior chamber pIOLs published between 2003 and 2023 were retrieved. China had the highest number of publications, whereas Japanese papers received the most citations. Fudan University had the highest number of publications, with articles from Kitasato University having the highest number of citations. Regarding individual research, Xingtao Zhou has published the most significant number of articles, and Shimizu Kimiya had the highest number of citations. The top productive/influential journal was ‘Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery’. The top cited references primarily focused on reporting the clinical outcomes of implantable collamer lens (ICL) for individuals with moderate to high myopia. The keywords primarily formed four clusters: posterior chamber pIOL clinical outcomes for myopic astigmatism correction, posterior chamber pIOL implantation complications, ICL size selection and postoperative vault predictions, and postoperative visual quality following posterior chamber pIOL implantation.

Conclusion: This study presents the first bibliometric analysis of research trends in posterior chamber pIOL over the past two decades. We investigated the current state and emerging trends of global collaboration and research focal points in this field, offering fresh insights and guidance for researchers.

1 Introduction

The prevalence of myopia is increasing globally, causing a major public health concern. It is estimated that billions of individuals will be affected by myopia by 2050 ( 1 ). Refractive surgery is crucial in myopia treatment; it enhances patients’ quality of life, productivity, and overall daily performance ( 2 ). There are three main types of refractive surgery: laser refractive surgery, implantation and refractive lens exchange, and phakic intraocular lens implantation (pIOL) ( 3 ). Implantation using pIOL is reversible, unlike the other two surgeries. Posterior chamber pIOLs are positioned further away from the corneal endothelium, inflicting less harm than early anterior chamber angle-supported pIOLs and anterior chamber iris-fixated pIOLs ( 3 ). The Visian implantable collamer lens (ICL) (STAAR Surgical, Nidau, Switzerland) is the most widely used type of pIOL globally. It is safe and effective and corrects myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism ( 4 , 5 ). Over the last two decades, significant progress has been made in posterior chamber pIOL implantation research.

Bibliometric analysis enables the scientific and quantitative analysis of publications. It was first introduced by Pritchard in 1969 and was later expanded by Van Raan’s infographics in 2004 ( 6 , 7 ). This method allows for citation, coauthor, and keyword co-occurrence analyses, which can create knowledge maps. These knowledge maps can be visualized using tools such as CiteSpace and VOSviewer.

This study evaluated growth in the annual distribution of publications, international and institutional collaborations, author productivity, journal contribution, and identifying knowledge bases and hotspots related to posterior chamber pIOLs research. Assessing research trends in the academic field is crucial in identifying gaps that require attention in future studies. Therefore, our study used bibliometric techniques to comprehensively assess the current developmental status and future trends in posterior chamber pIOLs.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 data sources and search strategies.

The Science Citation Index Extension database of the Online Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was used as the research source. The search keywords were “Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens” or “Implantable collamer lens.” The search time was between 2003 and 2023; the specified document types were articles. Language restrictions were not imposed. The search results were obtained as plain-text files and complete records with cited references. The search was conducted on January 31, 2024, and basic information on each article was collected, including the author, title, abstract, institution, journal, country, keywords, and references.

2.2 Analytical tools and methods

Visualization software can be used to analyze the publication data and generate knowledge graphs. This study analyzed publication data, including publication year, author, country/region, research institution, journals, citations, and keywords, using VOSviewer v.1.6.20. VOSviewer, 1 developed by van Eck and Waltman, is a literature visualization software that displays cluster analysis results ( 8 ). The knowledge graph generated by VOSviewer represents items as nodes and links. The sizes of the nodes and links correspond to the weights of the analyzed components. Node size indicates the number of publications, whereas the length and thickness of the connections between nodes represent the strength of the relationships between the analyzed components. Citation burst analysis on keywords was performed using CiteSpace 6.2.1, developed by Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA, United States. The burst map showed the burst intensity, with the red portion indicating the period during which the keywords emerged. This study utilized software to perform countries, authors, and institutional collaboration network coauthor analysis. In addition, it conducted reference co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, and citation bursts of keywords ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Data sources and search strategies.

3.1 Annual quantitative distribution of literature

WoSCC indexed 791 articles published between 2003 and 2023 based on the selection criteria. The posterior chamber pIOL annual publication volume is shown in Figure 2 . Over the past 20 years, posterior chamber pIOL publications have increased consistently, with a significant surge in the last four years. There were 103 publications in 2023, highlighting the rapid research development in this field.

Figure 2 . Annual number of publications in posterior chamber pIOL research between 2003 and 2023.

3.2 Distribution and co-authorship of countries/regions

Figure 3 shows WoSCC search results of 791 articles identified from 62 countries. The top 10 countries involved in posterior chamber pIOL research published 739 articles, accounting for 93.4% of the published papers ( Table 1 ). Regarding publication count, China produced the highest number of publications (235 publications, 29.7%), followed by Spain (123 publications, 15.5%) and the United States (92 publications, 11.6%). With respect to publication influence, Japanese publications received the highest number of citations (2,942 citations, 23%), followed by Spain (2,928 citations, 22.9%) and the United States (2,707 citations, 21.2%). A country/regional collaboration network, as illustrated in Figure 4 , was created using the coauthor analysis method. The size of each node represents the number of articles published by the respective country, and the links between nodes represent collaborations. The strength of the link indicates the intensity of cooperation.

Figure 3 . Distribution of main research countries/regions in posterior chamber pIOL research.

Table 1 . Top 10 productive/influential countries/regions in posterior chamber pIOL research, 2003–2023.

Figure 4 . Co-authorship network of countries/regions in posterior chamber pIOL research (The minimum number of documents of a country/region was set as 5; 29 of the 62 countries involved in posterior chamber pIOL research met the threshold).

3.3 Distribution and co-authorship of research organizations

The 791 articles identified using WoSCC were published across 822 institutions. The top 10 institutions involved in posterior chamber pIOL research contributed 386 articles, accounting for 48.8% of the total publications ( Table 2 ). Regarding publication count, Fudan University had the highest number of publications (68 articles, 8.6%, China), followed by Kitasato University (52 articles, 36.6%, Japan) and the University of Valencia (44 articles, 5.6%, Spain). With respect to publication impact, Kitasato University’s articles received the highest number of citations (1,657 citations, 13%, Japan), followed by the University of Valencia (1,138 citations, 8.9%, Spain) and the University of Oviedo (907 citations, 7.1%, Spain). Figure 5 shows the collaborative network of research institutions generated using coauthor analysis. The size of each node represents the number of articles published by the respective research institution, and the links between nodes indicate collaboration. The strength of these links reflects the intensity of cooperation.

Table 2 . Top 10 productive/influential organizations in posterior chamber pIOL research, 2003–2023.

Figure 5 . Co-authorship network institutions in posterior chamber pIOL research (The minimum number of an organization’s documents was set as 5; 66 of the 822 organizations involved in posterior chamber pIOL research met the threshold).

3.4 Distribution and co-authorship of authors

According to the search results of WoSCC, 2,581 authors participated in posterior chamber pIOL research. Table 3 presents the top 10 authors with the highest productivity and influence in this field. Regarding productivity, Xingtao Zhou from China published the highest number of articles (61 articles), followed by Xiaoying Wang (52 articles, China) and Kamiya Kazutaka (50 articles, Japan). Regarding influence, Shimizu Kimiya from Japan has the highest number of citations (1,742 citations), followed by Kamiya Kazutaka (1,648 citations, Japan) and Igarashi Akihito (1,361 citations, Japan). Figure 6 shows the authors’ collaboration network generated using the coauthor analysis. The size of each node represents the number of articles published by the respective research institutions, and the links between the nodes represent collaborations. The strength of the link indicates the intensity of cooperation.

Table 3 . Top 10 productive/influential authors in posterior chamber pIOL research, 2003–2023.

Figure 6 . Co-authorship network of authors in posterior chamber pIOL research (The minimum number of documents of an author was set as 5; 93 of the 2,518 authors involved in posterior chamber pIOL research met the threshold).

3.5 Contribution and citation analysis of journals

The analysis of 791 articles using WoSCC revealed that they were published across 100 journals. Table 4 displays the Top 10 productive/influential journals in posterior chamber pIOL research. The top three journals in terms of productivity are ‘Journal of Cataract & Refractory Surgery’, ‘Journal of Refractive Surgery’, and ‘BMC Ophthalmology’, with 118, 98, and 55 articles, respectively. ‘Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery’ stands out with 2,701 citations, establishing it as the most influential journal in the field. Figure 7 illustrates the citation network of the journal through citation analysis. The size of each node corresponds to the number of articles published by the research journals, while the links between nodes signify collaborations. The strength of the link reflects the level of cooperation.

Table 4 . Top 10 productive/influential journals in posterior chamber pIOL research, 2003–2023.

Figure 7 . Citation network of journals in posterior chamber pIOL research (The minimum number of documents of a journal was set as 5; 31 of the 100 journals involved in posterior chamber pIOL research met the threshold).

3.6 Co-citation analysis of reference

In total, 8,119 references were cited in 791 publications. Notably, 166 documents met the threshold when the minimum number of citations for cited documents was set at 20. Table 5 lists the top 10 cited documents. The most cited reference is ‘United States Food and Drug Administration clinical trial of the Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) for moderate to high myopia: three-year follow-up’ published in Ophthalmology in 2004.

Table 5 . Top 10 cited references in posterior chamber pIOL research, 2003–2023.

3.7 Co-occurrence analysis of keywords and citation bursts

A high-frequency keyword co-occurrence analysis was conducted to identify the research topics in this field. A keyword co-occurrence network for studying posterior chamber pIOL was generated using VOSviewer. The minimum number of co-occurrences for a keyword was set at 10. Of the 1,591 extracted keywords associated with posterior chamber pIOL, 117 were grouped into four main clusters with red, green, blue, and yellow colors as indicators ( Figure 8 ). Figure 9 shows the 25 keywords with the strongest citation bursts in this field between 2003 and 2023. After 2020, some of the popular keywords in the academic discourse were “management,” “v4c,” “safety,” and “size.”

Figure 8 . Co-occurrence network of keywords in posterior chamber pIOL research (The minimum number of occurrences of a keyword was set as 10; 117 of the 1,591 keywords involved in posterior chamber pIOL research met the threshold).

Figure 9 . Top 25 keywords with the strongest citation bursts in posterior chamber pIOL research.

4 Discussion

4.1 global trends in research on posterior chamber piol.

This study analyzed 791 original articles on posterior chamber pIOL published between 2003 and 2023. The findings indicate that there has been a consistent increase in the number of articles over the past two decades. This suggests that posterior chamber pIOLs are gaining acceptance and significant attention from the academic community. The number of publications in the past four years doubled, accounting for 43% of the total documents published in the last 20 years. This increase may be attributed to the bursts of keywords such as “management,” “v4c,” “safety,” and “size” in 2020. These findings indicate that the current research interests are centered on the perioperative management of posterior chamber pIOL and the safety and size selection of new generation v4c type ICL.

After publication location analysis, we discovered that research on this topic has been published in 62 countries and regions worldwide, indicating a global interest in posterior chamber pIOL. China, Spain, the United States, and Japan emerged as the top four contributors to productivity and influence among the 62 countries. In addition, our coauthor analysis revealed collaborations in this field across various countries, with the United States being central and exhibiting the highest total link strength. This suggests that the United States is a hub for international collaboration in posterior-chamber pIOLs.

It is possible to identify the most productive and influential organizations by examining the distribution of research institutions. Based on the findings presented in Table 2 , the Kitasato University emerged as the top publisher and citation receiver, establishing itself as the most authoritative organization in this research field. The visualization diagram illustrates this further, with nodes representing the number of releases and links indicating collaboration. Figure 5 demonstrates that Fudan University (link = 9) and the Singapore National Eye Center (link = 9) have the highest number of connections, indicating strong collaborative ties with other institutions.

Building an author knowledge graph can provide valuable information to researchers seeking opportunities for collaboration. As shown in Table 3 , Professor Shimizu Kimiya published 48 papers and was cited 1742 times, establishing him as a prominent figure in this research field. Figure 6 shows that the size of each node corresponds to the number of releases, and the strength of the links indicates the level of collaboration. We used coauthor analysis with the green and cyan groups to identify the four research groups that exhibited the highest global productivity in this field, indicating Prof. Xingtao Zhou (Fudan University, China) as the core.

The red group indicates Prof. Robert Montés-Micó (University of Valencia, Spain); the blue group indicates Prof. Kazutaka Kamiya (Kitasato University, Japan); and the yellow group indicates Prof. Takashi Kojima (Keio University, Japan) as their respective cores.

4.2 Intellectual base

We comprehensively elucidated the intellectual foundation and research context surrounding posterior chamber pIOL using co-citation analysis of publication references. Table 4 shows how the three co-cited references primarily examined the safety, effectiveness, and predictability of ICL surgery in addressing moderate to high myopic refractive errors and its impact on anterior subcapsular cataracts development, which ranked first in citation frequency and total link strength, indicating their central position in the knowledge network.

4.3 Research frontiers

Keyword co-occurrence analysis is a widely employed research method in bibliometrics that helps to uncover the primary internal knowledge structure and hotspot classification of relevant documents. Figure 8 illustrates that posterior chamber pIOL themes primarily form four clusters, with keywords in the same cluster sharing more similarities in research topics. Considering the characteristics and current state of posterior chamber pIOL research, we analyzed these four clusters.

Cluster#1 (red) focused on keywords associated with posterior chamber pIOL clinical outcomes for correcting myopic astigmatism. The frequently co-occurring keywords included myopia, outcomes, astigmatism, lasik, safety, central hole, keratoconus, stability, and penetrating keratoplasty. Studies have shown that ICL and toric ICL (TICL) are effective, safe, and predictable for myopia and myopic astigmatism correction ( 9 – 11 ). Multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated that ICL implantation can achieve comparable or superior effectiveness and safety in correcting moderate-to-high myopia compared with laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) ( 5 , 12 – 15 ). Notably, several clinical follow-up studies conducted over 5 years have consistently demonstrated the favorable stability of ICL and TICL ( 16 – 19 ). However, in super-high myopia cases with a diopter (D) < −12D, stability after ICL implantation may be slightly compromised, leading to continued myopia increase and axial growth ( 20 , 21 ). Li et al. conducted a study in which ICL implantation was performed in the eyes of 60 patients with subclinical keratoconus. The findings revealed favorable postoperative efficacy, safety, and predictability, and the refractive outcomes remained stable throughout the 2-year follow-up period ( 22 ). Al-Amri et al. studied the clinical effects of TICL implantation in patients with stable keratoconus for >5 years ( 23 ). The results showed a significant improvement in the uncorrected visual acuity, changing from 20/248 preoperatively to 20/24 postoperatively. These findings suggest that TICL is a safe, effective, and stable treatment for vision enhancement. Alfonso-Bartolozzi et al. conducted a clinical observation of 15 eyes that underwent penetrating keratoplasty and received TICL for refractive error correction over 2 years ( 24 ). The results showed that 46.6 and 80% of the eyes achieved an uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (20/40), respectively. The safety index was 1.58, indicating TICL safety and effectiveness for residual myopia and astigmatism treatment after penetrating keratoplasty surgery. Currently, research on the use of posterior-chamber pIOL after corneal transplantation is limited. Further investigations are required to assess its predictability and safety.

Cluster #2 (green) focused on complications following posterior chamber IOL implantation. The frequently co-occurring keywords included high myopia, implantation, hyperopia, cataracts, complications, glaucoma, extraction, pupillary block, risk factors, and retinal detachment. Post-surgical cataract development is a frequent complication of posterior chamber pIOL. Cataract is primarily formed by placing the posterior chamber pIOL between the iris and lens, disrupting the circulation of aqueous humor around the lens. According to Vargas et al., cataract formation was the primary reason for bilensectomy following posterior chamber pIOL implantation, accounting for 93.1% of cases ( 25 ). Similarly, Hayakawa et al. discovered that the most prevalent cause of posterior chamber pIOL extraction is the progression of cataract formation, which accounted for 63% of cases ( 26 ). Meta-analyses show that cataract occurrence after ICL implantation was 1.1–5.9% before central-hole ICLs were introduced ( 27 ). Old age (> 40 years), high myopia (< −12.0D), and low vault (< 230 μm) are risk factors for cataract progression ( 27 ). In long-term follow-up studies of patients with central-hole ICLs over 5 years, the incidence of anterior subcapsular cataracts was 0.53%, whereas that of nuclear cataracts was 0.08% ( 28 ). Notably, nuclear cataract occurrence is associated with age and not influenced by ICL implantation ( 18 ). A 0.36-mm central hole facilitates the normal flow of aqueous humor, essential for maintaining proper fluid dynamics in the eye. This also enhances aqueous humor circulation around the lens, reducing anterior subcapsular cataracts ( 29 ).

Ocular hypertension is a common complication. Senthil et al. studied 638 eyes of 359 patients who underwent V4b and V4c model ICL implantation for 8 months. They found that 4.85% of patients developed intraocular pressure (IOP), whereas 0.3% developed glaucoma ( 30 ). The most common cause of increased IOP was steroid use, followed by viscoelastic agent residue and pupillary block ( 30 ). Another study by Naripthaphan et al. found no statistical difference in postoperative IOP between traditional ICL with peripheral iridotomy and central-hole ICL without a preoperative prophylactic incision ( 31 ). Qian et al. discovered that, in patients with shallow anterior chambers who underwent V4c model ICL implantation, a high vault may lead to narrowing of the anterior chamber, resulting in a long-term IOP increase. Therefore, in eyes with shallow anterior chambers, a narrower safe vault range is recommended ( 32 ).

Posterior chamber pIOL and other forms of inner eye surgery may pose a potential risk for vitreoretinal complications and retinal detachment ( 33 ). In their retrospective cohort study, Arrevola-Velasco et al. demonstrated that retinal detachment prevalence in patients who underwent ICL implantation over 10 years was 1.71% ( 34 ). The study found no evidence of increased retinal detachment risk in these patients compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery ( 34 ). Myopia is a significant risk factor for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, and its incidence increases with myopia severity ( 35 ). A strict fundus examination should be conducted before and after posterior chamber IOL implantation. In addition, preventive retinal laser photocoagulation can effectively mitigate the risk of retinal detachment if deemed necessary.

Cluster#3 (blue) focused on keywords associated with ICL size selection and postoperative vault predictions. Frequently co-occurring keywords included vault, ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM), optical coherence tomography (OCT), angle, white-to-white, anterior segment, ciliary sulcus diameter, biometry, 3-year follow-up, v4c, size, pentacam, and anterior chamber depth. Currently, v4c ICL is the most widely used posterior chamber pIOL. The lens is available in four sizes, with lengths of 12.1 mm, 12.6 mm, 13.2 mm, and 13.7 mm ( 36 ). The postoperative vault, which is the distance between the posterior surface of the pIOL and the anterior surface of the crystalline lens, influences the risk of postoperative complications. Current methods for measuring vault height include UBM, anterior segment OCT, and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam). Studies have demonstrated that the vault height measurement value obtained from anterior segment OCT is higher than that obtained from UBM and Pentacam, with Pentacam showing the lowest measurement value ( 37 ). According to research, the ICL optimal vault typically falls within 250–750 μm ( 38 – 40 ). If the vault is >750 μm, it can result in the ICL pushing the iris forward, leading to changes in the angle shape, pupillary block, and an elevated risk of pigment dispersion glaucoma. Conversely, if the vault is too low (< 250 μm), cataract formation is more likely. ICL size selection is crucial in vault determination; therefore, optimizing the choice of ICL length is essential in reducing postoperative complications ( 41 ). According to the manufacturer’s recommended nomogram, ICL size selection has traditionally been based on anterior chamber depth and white-to-white diameter measurements ( 17 ). A meta-study conducted on 2,263 eyes across 24 studies revealed that considering a normal distribution of vaults, approximately 16% of eyes had vaults ranging from 0–250 μm, whereas 0.4% had vaults >1,000 μm ( 42 ). The inadequate vault can be partly attributed to the weak correlation between the white-to-white and ciliary sulcus diameters where the ICL was placed ( 43 ). Ciliary sulcus diameter measurement using UBM is a contact examination that requires the examiner to possess specific experience and is susceptible to subjective interference. This limits its widespread use in ICL size selection. A meta-analysis indicated that ICL-sizing methods based on sulcus-to-sulcus and white-to-white measurements do not yield clinically meaningful or statistically significant differences in the vault ( 42 ). Anterior segment OCT is a reliable and non-invasive method for obtaining anterior segment parameters. Research has shown that ICL size selection using anterior segment OCT multiple regression models or machine learning yields comparable or even superior outcomes compared with traditional nomograms ( 44 – 46 ). A crystalline lens rise was identified as an additional independent factor contributing to postoperative vault differences. It can be used for preoperative ICL-sizing calculations ( 47 ).

Cluster#4 (yellow) focused on keywords associated with postoperative visual quality following the posterior chamber pIOL implantation for myopia and astigmatism of varying diopters correction. The frequently co-occurring keywords included moderate in situ keratomileusis, follow-up, refractive surgery, administration clinical trials, photorefractive keratectomy, management, contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, and spherical aberration. Compared with spectacle correction, ICL implantation has decreased intraocular scattering and enhanced optical quality in individuals with high myopia ( 48 , 49 ). A study conducted on 42 patients who underwent ICL implantation for 1 year revealed a significant improvement in contrast sensitivity at 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree after the procedure ( 50 ). Similarly, Bai et al. utilized the binoptometer 4P to measure contrast sensitivity and observed a significant enhancement compared with preoperative measurements ( 51 ). Shin et al. discovered that ICL implantation resulted in lower levels of ocular and corneal higher-order aberrations (HOA) in patients with highly myopic eyes than in those with wavefront-guided laser epithelial keratomileusis ( 52 ). Notably, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated that high myopia ICL treatment yields a lower HOA than LASIK and SMILE ( 4 , 5 , 14 ). According to a study conducted by Tian et al., V4 ICL and central hole V4c ICL had comparable post-implantation visual qualities. However, V4c ICL resulted in higher levels of high-order and spherical aberrations ( 53 ). According to previous reports, some individuals experience visual interference known as “ring-shaped dysphotopsia” after ICL implantation. This phenomenon is associated with the refraction of stray light between the inner wall of the hole and the ICL posterior surface ( 54 ). However, it has been observed that patients can adapt to this interference within 6 months postoperatively ( 55 ).

4.4 Limitations

This study has some limitations. First, the analysis was based on publications between 2003 and 2023, which may not encompass all relevant topics in pIOL research. Second, the quality of published articles was not considered, and articles with varying research qualities were assigned equal weights. Finally, this study relied solely on data from the WoSCC database, potentially resulting in incomplete coverage of publications. Future studies should consider combining data from multiple databases to ensure a more comprehensive assessment.

5 Conclusion

This study presents the first bibliometric analysis of research trends in posterior chamber pIOL over the past two decades. We investigated the current state and emerging trends in global collaboration and research focal points in this field by visually analyzing pIOL-related research to offer researchers fresh insights and guidance.

Author contributions

JN: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. QZ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WL: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RZ: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZX: Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LJ: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – original draft. LZ: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82171032), Liaoning Provincial Applied basic research project (No. 2022JH2/101300036), Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 201800209 and 2020-MS-339), Youth Science and Technology Star Project of Dalian (No. 2021RQO33), Health Commission Foundation of Dalian (No. 2111008), and Dalian Science and Technology Innovation Fund project (No. 2023JJ12034).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbreviations

D, Diopters; HOA, High-order aberrations; ICL, Implantable collamer lens; LASIK, Laser in situ keratomileusis; OCT, Optical coherence tomography; pIOL, Phakic intraocular lens; SMILE, Small incision lenticule extraction; TICL, Toric intraocular lens; UBM, Ultrasound biomicroscopy; WoSCC, Web of science core collection

1. ^ www.vosviewer.com

1. Holden, BA, Fricke, TR, Wilson, DA, Jong, M, Naidoo, KS, Sankaridurg, P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia, high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology . (2016) 123:1036–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Sugar, A, Hood, CT, and Mian, SI. Patient-reported outcomes following LASIK quality of life in the PROWL studies. JAMA . (2017) 317:204–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.19323

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Jonker, SMR, Berendschot, TTJM, Saelens, IEY, Bauer, NJC, and Nuijts, RMMA. Phakic intraocular lenses: an overview. Indian J Ophthalmol . (2020) 68:2779–96. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2995_20

4. Chen, D, Zhao, X, Chou, Y, and Luo, Y. Comparison of visual outcomes and optical quality of femtosecond laser–assisted SMILE and visian implantable collamer lens (ICL V4c) implantation for moderate to high myopia: a meta-analysis. J Refract Surg . (2022) 38:332–8. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20220411-01

5. Cao, K, Zhang, J, Wang, J, Yusufu, M, Jin, S, Chen, S, et al. Implantable collamer lens versus small incision lenticule extraction for high myopia correction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol . (2021) 21:450. doi: 10.1186/s12886-021-02206-9

6. Pritchard, A . Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J Doc . (1969) 25:348–9.

Google Scholar

7. Van Raan, AFJ . Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics . (2004) 59:467–72. doi: 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018543.82441.f1

8. Van Eck, NJ, and Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics . (2010) 84:523–38. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

9. Wei, R, Li, M, Niu, L, Aruma, A, Miao, H, Shen, Y, et al. Comparison of visual outcomes after non-toric and toric implantable collamer lens V4c for myopia and astigmatism. Acta Ophthalmol . (2021) 99:511–8. doi: 10.1111/aos.14652

10. Du, J, Zhou, W, Zhao, T, Qian, T, Lu, Y, Li, H, et al. Efficacy and safety of implantable collamer lens V4c implantation in 1, 834 myopic eyes for 1 year of follow-up. J Refract Surg . (2023) 39:694–704. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20230908-02

11. Albo, C, Nasser, T, Szynkarski, DT, Nguyen, N, Mueller, B, Libfraind, L, et al. A comprehensive retrospective analysis of EVO/EVO+ implantable collamer lens: evaluating refractive outcomes in the largest single center study of ICL patients in the United States. Clin Ophthalmol . (2024) 18:69–78. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S440578

12. Li, HY, Ye, Z, and Li, ZH. Postoperative efficacy, safety, predictability, and visual quality of implantable collamer lens implantation versus small incision lenticule extraction in myopic eyes: a metaanalysis. Int J Ophthalmol . (2023) 16:442–52. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2023.03.16

13. Di, Y, Cui, G, Li, Y, and Luo, Y. A meta-analysis of visual outcomes and optical quality after small incision lenticule extraction versus implantable collamer lens for myopia. Eur J Ophthalmol . (2023) 33:136–44. doi: 10.1177/11206721221097249

14. Goes, S, and Delbeke, H. Posterior chamber toric implantable collamer lenses vs LASIK for myopia and astigmatism: systematic review. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2022) 48:1204–10. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001007

15. Chen, H, Liu, Y, Niu, G, and Ma, J. Excimer laser versus phakic intraocular lenses for myopia and astigmatism: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eye Contact Lens . (2018) 44:137–43. doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000327

16. Chen, X, Wang, X, Xu, Y, Cheng, M, Han, T, Wang, X, et al. Long-term comparison of vault and complications of implantable collamer lens with and without a central hole for high myopia correction: 5 years. Curr Eye Res . (2022) 47:540–6. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2021.2012202

17. Kamiya, K, Shimizu, K, Takahashi, M, Ando, W, Hayakawa, H, and Shoji, N. Eight-year outcomes of implantation of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central port for moderate to high ametropia. Front Med . (2021) 8:799078. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.799078

18. Papa-Vettorazzi, MR, Güell, JL, Cruz-Rodriguez, JB, Moura-Coelho, N, and Elies, D. Long-term efficacy and safety profiles after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in eyes with more than 10 years of follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2022) 48:813–8. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000848

19. Lwowski, C, Van Keer, K, Ruscher, T, Van Keer, L, Shajari, M, and Kohnen, T. Five-year follow-up of a posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens with a central hole for correction of myopia. Int Ophthalmol . (2023) 43:4933–43. doi: 10.1007/s10792-023-02896-8

20. Chen, X, Wang, X, Xu, Y, Cheng, M, Han, T, Niu, LL, et al. Five-year outcomes of EVO implantable collamer lens implantation for the correction of high myopia and super high myopia. Eye Vis . (2021) 8:40. doi: 10.1186/s40662-021-00264-0

21. Chen, X, Chen, Z, Miao, H, Wang, X, Wang, X, and Zhou, X. One-year analysis of the refractive stability, axial elongation and related factors in a high myopia population after implantable Collamer Lens implantation. Int Ophthalmol . (2022) 42:3295–302. doi: 10.1007/s10792-022-02328-z

22. Li, K, Wang, Z, Zhang, D, Wang, S, Song, X, Li, Y, et al. Visual outcomes and corneal biomechanics after V4c implantable collamer lens implantation in subclinical keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2020) 46:1339–45. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000262

23. Al-Amri, AM, Al Jabbar, IS, Bedywi, RM, Alhadi, WA, Alhashim, NS, Fihrah, RS, et al. Long-term outcomes and safety of the phakic visian toric implantable collamer lens in eyes with non-progressive keratoconus. Bahrain Medical Bulletin . (2023) 45:1432–5.

24. Alfonso, JF, Lisa, C, Abdelhamid, A, Montés-Micó, R, Poo-López, A, and Ferrer-Blasco, T. Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lenses after penetrating keratoplasty. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2009) 35:1166–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.02.027

25. Vargas, V, Alió, JL, Barraquer, RI, D’ Antin, JC, García, C, Duch, F, et al. Safety and visual outcomes following posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens bilensectomy. Eye Vis . (2020) 7:34. doi: 10.1186/s40662-020-00200-8

26. Hayakawa, H, Kamiya, K, Ando, W, Takahashi, M, and Shoji, N. Etiology and outcomes of current posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens extraction. Sci Rep . (2020) 10:21686. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78661-z

27. Igarashi, A, Kamiya, K, Ichikawa, K, Kitazawa, Y, Kojima, T, Nakamura, T, et al. Multicenter clinical outcomes of hole implantable collamer lens implantation in middle-aged patients. Sci Rep . (2022) 12:4236. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08298-7

28. Wannapanich, T, Kasetsuwan, N, and Reinprayoon, U. Intraocular implantable collamer lens with a central hole implantation: safety, efficacy, and patient outcomes. Clin Ophthalmol . (2023) 17:969–80. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S379856

29. Packer, M . The implantable collamer lens with a central port: review of the literature. Clin Ophthalmol . (2018) 12:2427–38. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S188785

30. Senthil, S, Choudhari, NS, Vaddavalli, PK, Murthy, S, Reddy, J, and Garudadri, CS. Etiology and management of raised intraocular pressure following posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation in myopic eyes. PLoS One . (2016) 11:e0165469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165469

31. Naripthaphan, P, Pachimkul, P, and Chantra, S. Efficacy and safety of hole implantable collamer lens in comparison with original implantable collamer lens in patients with moderate to high myopia. J Med Assoc Thail . (2017) 100:S48–55.

32. Qian, T, Du, J, Ren, R, Zhou, H, Li, H, Zhang, Z, et al. Vault-correlated efficacy and safety of implantable collamer lens v4c implantation for myopia in patients with shallow anterior chamber depth. Ophthalmic Res . (2023) 66:445–56. doi: 10.1159/000528616

33. Kohnen, T, Kook, D, Morral, M, and Güell, JL. Phakic intraocular lenses: part 2: results and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2010) 36:2168–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.10.007

34. Arrevola-Velasco, L, Beltrán, J, Rumbo, A, Nieto, R, Druchkiv, V, Martínez De La Casa, JM, et al. Ten-year prevalence of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in myopic eyes after posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lens. J Cataract Refract Surg . (2023) 49:272–7. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001099

35. Burton, TC . The influence of refractive error and lattice degeneration on the incidence of retinal detachment. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc . (1989) 87:143–55.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

36. Lee, H, Kang, DSY, Ha, BJ, Choi, M, Kim, EK, Seo, KY, et al. Effect of accommodation on vaulting and movement of posterior chamber phakic lenses in eyes with implantable collamer lenses. Am J Ophthalmol . (2015) 160:710–6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.07.014

37. Yang, Y, Wan, T, Yin, H, Yang, Y, Wu, F, and Wu, Z. Comparative study of anterior segment measurements using 3 different instruments in myopic patients after ICL implantation. BMC Ophthalmol . (2019) 19:182. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1194-y

38. Fernandes, P, González-Méijome, JM, Madrid-Costa, D, Ferrer-Blasco, T, Jorge, J, and Montés-Micó, R. Implantable collamer posterior chamber intraocular lenses: a review of potential complications. J Refract Surg . (2011) 27:765–76. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20110617-01

39. Alfonso, JF, Fernández-Vega, L, Lisa, C, Fernandes, P, González-Meijome, J, and Montés-Micó, R. Long-term evaluation of the central vault after phakic Collamer® lens (ICL) implantation using OCT. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol . (2012) 250:1807–12. doi: 10.1007/s00417-012-1957-0

40. Kato, S, Shimizu, K, and Igarashi, A. Assessment of low-vault cases with an implantable collamer lens. PLoS One . (2020) 15:e0241814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241814

41. Kang, EM, Ryu, IH, Lee, G, Kim, JK, Lee, IS, Jeon, GH, et al. Development of a web-based ensemble machine learning application to select the optimal size of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens. Transl Vis Sci Technol . (2021) 10:5. doi: 10.1167/tvst.10.6.5

42. Packer, M . Meta-analysis and review: effectiveness, safety, and central port design of the intraocular collamer lens. Clin Ophthalmol . (2016) 10:1059–77. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S111620

43. Reinstein, DZ, Lovisolo, CF, Archer, TJ, and Gobbe, M. Comparison of postoperative vault height predictability using white-to-white or sulcus diameter-based sizing for the visian implantable collamer lens. J Refract Surg . (2013) 29:30–5. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20121210-02

44. Di, Y, Li, Y, and Luo, Y. Prediction of implantable collamer lens vault based on preoperative biometric factors and lens parameters. J Refract Surg . (2023) 39:332–9. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20230207-03

45. Kamiya, K, Ryu, IH, Yoo, TK, Kim, JS, Lee, IS, Kim, JK, et al. Prediction of phakic intraocular lens vault using machine learning of anterior segment optical coherence tomography metrics. Am J Ophthalmol . (2021) 226:90–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.02.006

46. Igarashi, A, Shimizu, K, and Kato, S. Assessment of the vault after implantable collamer lens implantation using the KS formula. J Refract Surg . (2021) 37:636–41. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20210610-06

47. Gonzalez-Lopez, F, Bilbao-Calabuig, R, Mompean, B, Luezas, J, Ortega-Usobiaga, J, and Druchkiv, V. Determining the potential role of crystalline lens rise in vaulting in posterior chamber phakic collamer lens surgery for correction of myopia. J Refract Surg . (2019) 35:177–83. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20190204-01

48. He, T, Zhu, Y, and Zhou, J. Optical quality after posterior chamber phakic implantation of an intraocular lens with a central hole (V4c implantable collamer lens) under different lighting conditions. BMC Ophthalmol . (2020) 20:82. doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01340-0

49. Yu, Z, Li, J, and Song, H. Short-time evaluation on intraocular scattering after implantable collamer lens implantation for correcting high myopia. BMC Ophthalmol . (2020) 20:235. doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01482-1

50. Reinstein, DZ, Vida, RS, and Archer, TJ. Visual outcomes, footplate position and vault achieved with the visian implantable collamer lens for myopic astigmatism. Clin Ophthalmol . (2021) 15:4485–97. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S330879

51. Meng, D, Chang, R, and Zhu, R. Analysis of nosocomial infection and risk factors in lung transplant patients: a case-control study. Ann Transl Med . (2022) 10:804. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-3023

52. Shin, JY, Ahn, H, Seo, KY, Kim, EK, and Kim, TI. Comparison of higher order aberrations after implantable collamer lens implantation and wavefront-guided LASEK in high myopia. J Refract Surg . (2012) 28:106–11. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20111018-02

53. Tian, Y, Jiang, HB, Jiang, J, Wen, D, Xia, XB, Song, WT, et al. Comparison of implantable collamer lens visian ICL V4 and ICL V4c for high myopia: a cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) . (2017) 96:e7294. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007294

54. Eom, Y, Kim, DW, Ryu, D, Kim, JH, Yang, SK, Song, JS, et al. Ring-shaped dysphotopsia associated with posterior chamber phakic implantable collamer lenses with a central hole. Acta Ophthalmol . (2017) 95:e170–8. doi: 10.1111/aos.13248

55. Martínez-Plaza, E, López-Miguel, A, López-de la Rosa, A, McAlinden, C, Fernández, I, and Maldonado, MJ. Effect of the EVO+ visian phakic implantable collamer lens on visual performance and quality of vision and life. Am J Ophthalmol . (2021) 226:117–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.02.005

Keywords: posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens, implantable collamer lens, bibliometric analysis, VOSviewer, CiteSpace

Citation: Ning J, Zhang Q, Liang W, Zhang R, Xing Z, Jin L and Zhang L (2024) Bibliometric and visualized analysis of posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens research between 2003 and 2023. Front. Med . 11:1391327. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1391327

Received: 25 February 2024; Accepted: 27 March 2024; Published: 08 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Ning, Zhang, Liang, Zhang, Xing, Jin and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lijun Zhang, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

This article is part of the Research Topic

Updates in Ocular Therapeutics and Surgery, Volume III

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Reumatologia
• v.58(6); 2020

Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers

Olena zimba.

1 Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, United Kingdom

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed the authorship criteria which can be employed by medics and allied specialists. Scholars who substantively contribute to research and writing, revise, approve final drafts for target journal submissions, and take responsibility for all aspects of the work deserve authorship. Increasing awareness of the ICMJE criteria, incorporating related points in journal instructions, and enforcing them in daily practice may have positive impact for healthcare. Instances of inappropriate authorship are ethical transgressions which can be avoided by editors employing strategies of author profile evaluations. There are several platforms for recording author accomplishments which may improve the discoverability of scholarly works and prevent unethical conduct.

Most publishers advise authors to submit their Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCID) at the manuscript submission. Other identifiers, such as Twitter handles, are also emerging as tools to stimulate post-publication communication and increase authors’ accountability for published articles.

Introduction

Scientific authorship is based on principles of contribution, responsibility, and credit [ 1 ]. Some experts additionally advocate for equity, diversity, and inclusion to avoid gender and country-based biases and endorse the concept of equal opportunities for all able contributors [ 2 ]. Improving awareness of authorship norms may add to the quality of research and prevent research and publication misconduct [ 3 ].

The issue of authorship is becoming more complex in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and global crisis [ 4 , 5 ], affecting established research infrastructure and career opportunities and mandating switch to online collaboration. Early-career researchers are now facing challenges with motivation and involvement in influential studies [ 6 ]. Renewed initiatives are particularly warranted in research-intensive fields, such as rheumatology and immunology, to adapt to the new realities of cross-country and cross-disciplinary collaborations to re-evaluate anti-inflammatory drugs and antiviral vaccines. More attention to the issue of authorship in these fields is also required to ensure the crediting of those who meet certain authorship criteria and contribute to the science growth.

Authorship criteria

Defining authorship and employing strategies for verifying author qualifications distinguish ethical journals from substandard, or “predatory”, journals [ 7 ]. Responsible journal editors and publishers alike regularly update their instructions for employing mechanisms of reporting author roles and preventing instances of inappropriate authorship [ 8 ].

The absolute majority of medical, biomedical, and allied journals currently declare the adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, mandating substantive contribution (1), participation in the manuscript revision (2), its approval for submission to a target journal (3), and responsibility for all aspects of the work (4) [ 9 ]. The main requirements are to fulfil all four criteria to be credited as authors and acknowledge non-author contributions, such as language editing and other services offered by commercial editing agencies [ 10 ]. The agreement to take responsibility for all aspects of the scholarly work is perhaps the most critical and not entirely clear to some authors [ 11 ]. This criterion was introduced by the ICMJE in 2013 to curb the problems with inappropriate crediting for technical assistance, funding, language editing, statistical analyses, and other types of support in the absence of responsibility for all aspects of the work and (un)intentional wrongdoings [ 12 ]. Notably, technical (non-intellectual) contributions and financial support cannot justify an addition to the author bylines [ 13 ].

Biomedical journal editors, particularly those who process submissions from non-Anglophone countries and emerging professional societies, should implement mechanisms to increase the awareness of the ICMJE criteria and avoid instances of unethical authorship [ 14 ]. In this regard, an analysis of 296 names listed as authors of a top Iranian journal demonstrated that 37% of them did not meet the ICMJE criteria (“guest” authors) [ 15 ]. A large survey of physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists who published their research in the top specialist journals (n = 246) revealed that 45% of the respondents were unaware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and 30% were unaware of what constitutes honorary authorship [ 16 ].

Ideally, author contributions, order, and responsibilities throughout the publishing and post-publication communication should be defined at the start of research [ 17 ]. Such an approach may prevent human errors and misleading ethics notes in published articles.

Non-medical journal editors may adapt and enforce the adherence to the ICMJE authorship criteria, crediting those with substantive contributions [ 18 ]. Alternatively, they may refer to the Council of Science Editors (CSE) definitions and procedures that aim to assign authorship to persons with “sufficient” scholarly contributions. The CSE also recommends to identify roles of all co-authors and inform readers of the same [ 19 ].

Finally, all stakeholders in science communication are advised to familiarize with the updated ethics statements of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that prioritize strategies to identify authors and their contributions and manage related disputes [ 20 ].

Creative ideas and authorship order

Although the current taxonomy of author contributions, which is employed by some publishers and journals, is sufficiently detailed and quantifiable [ 21 ], journal editors should not overlook the importance of immeasurable creative ideas. Traditionally, such ideas and overall intellectual input bring about the main credit in multi-authored research and review articles [ 22 ]. Ideas formulated as scientific hypotheses often result in solo-authored articles which are increasingly published in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 23 , 24 ].

The sequence of author names on article bylines is often determined by established global and local crediting norms, level of contribution, and academic discipline [ 25 , 26 ]. Traditionally, the first authorship is reserved for senior research fellows, those who secure funds, or administrators in post-Socialist countries. The same actors are listed last in most developed and Western countries. The first and last places on the bylines are often viewed as the most important in the context of technical and conceptual contributions. The first and last author entries are often processed by grant funding agencies and bibliographic databases. One of the rational and globally acceptable approaches to the authorship order is based on listing author names in declining order, i.e. those with the greatest contributions are listed first and followed by those with declining contributions [ 25 , 27 , 28 ].

Journal editors often process manuscripts with co-first authors who may jointly benefit from their privileged place and claim their status during the academic promotion. Editorial policies of designating co-first authorship vary across journals since there are no universally acceptable instructions [ 29 ]. By properly denoting co-first authorship, editors may facilitate searches through online databases which should adjust their options to the growing trend in authorship [ 30 ].

Instances of inappropriate authorship

Inappropriate (honorary) authorship is a frequently reported publication ethics violation ( Table I ). In obvious cases of misconduct, individuals with minimal or no scholarly contributions are credited as authors. No any journal is immune to this transgression which is confounded by the unawareness of acceptable norms and inadequate editorial strategies. Numerous reports have pointed to honorary authorship even in articles of flagship journals due to corresponding authors’ irresponsible conduct [ 31 ].

Common instances of inappropriate authorship

A landmark survey involving 630 corresponding authors of high-impact general medical journals revealed the following descending prevalence of honorary authorship: 25% in original research reports, 15% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials [ 32 ]. A recent large survey of 3859 scholars demonstrated that 74% of respondents had been involved in a study where someone was added as a co-author without substantive contribution (honorary authorship) and 34% had witnessed the opposite – not listing a co-author despite substantive contribution (ghost writing) [ 33 ]. And when asked about the widely publicized ICMJE authorship criteria, only 74% confirmed their awareness.

Honorary authorship may present in different forms. An extreme case of the violation involves non-professionals who lack any knowledge in the subject like kids of influential administrators who abuse their power and fabricate profiles of their family members [ 34 ]. Members of research groups and collaborating centers may be involved in the so-called gift authorship by unethically assigning authorship to colleagues and expecting a reciprocal attitude from them [ 1 ]. Senior researchers and administrators with impressive profiles can be listed as “guest” authors in an attempt to increase the chances of the manuscript acceptance and publication [ 1 ].

Finally, “paid” authorship is offered by some predatory journals that sell authorship to individuals who wish to pay and unethically boost their publication records [ 35 ]. Such a predatory practice has surfaced in the times of mass proliferation of open-access journals and commercial editing agencies that offer their services in violation of established ethical norms. Importantly, most articles with paid authorship turned to be fabricated and published with “fake” reviews [ 36 ].

Sophisticated forms of misconduct include instances of guest authorship and ghost writing. In such cases, eminent scientists appear as lead authors in articles drafted by industry-sponsored medical “ghost” writers who hide their identities. Related articles often violate authorship and conflicts of interest disclosure norms and contain misleading drug information that may have dire consequences for healthcare [ 37 , 38 ].

Finally, contributors with substantive input to research and writing may encounter the denial to be credited as authors [ 39 ]. The denial often affects junior research fellows and students who satisfy acceptable authorship criteria but judged unsuitable of scholarly credits [ 40 ]. Journal editors processing manuscripts from research environments where denial of authorship is possible due to subjective reasons, such as interpersonal conflicts and internal policies, should ask all listed authors to disclose their contributions and reassure that no-one deserving authorship credit has been denied such a privilege.

Author identifiers

Author identifiers and online profiling platforms play several important roles. One of the basic functions of such e-links is to distinguish scholars with identical names and help journal editors to increase visibility of scholarly contributions [ 41 ]. Assigning identifiers to non-Anglophone authors with variably spelled, misplaced, and missing names may prevent technical mistakes and avoid losing their article records in bibliographic databases [ 42 ]. In the era of digitization and open access, author identifiers are essential for making scholarly accomplishments more discoverable by cross-linking individual records with digital platforms, libraries, and editorial management systems [ 43 , 44 ].

Since its launch in 2012, Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID; https://orcid.org/ ) has become a universal and multifunctional tool for increasing visibility of author profiles and their scholarly contributions. As of November 23, 2020, the number of the registered users is 10,091,759. Any scholar may freely register with the ORCID platform and maintain a persistent online profile for life. The main advantage of the platform is its ease of registration, safety and accuracy of data recording, and availability of options for listing author, reviewer, and editor accomplishments ( Table II ). ORCID IDs are now endorsed and integrated with numerous funding agencies, bibliographic databases and search platforms, reviewer crediting platform (Publons; http://publons.com/ ), and social media, enabling comprehensive evaluation of the ID holders’ background and current scientific interests. Journal editors employ these IDs to pick peer reviewers and display editorial board member activities [ 45 ]. Importantly, non-Anglophone scholars may benefit a lot from the ORCID initiative by increasing transparency and validity of their academic activities [ 46 ].

Some advantages and limitations of Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID)

Perhaps the main limitation of the ORCID initiative is the unavailability of scholars’ photographs, video clips, interaction tools, and full-text repository, which are available on digital repositories and platforms for generating academic curriculum vitae such as ResearchGate ( https://www.researchgate.net/ ). Also, some registrants may avoid publicly sharing their information, limiting the use of their IDs for scholarly evaluation purposes.

Listing several IDs with publicly available information may partly overcome limitations of ORCID IDs. Relevant examples are Scopus Author ID, PubMed list of articles, and Publons profile with merged Web of Science entries, which are now widely employed by journal editors for displaying academic profiles of their board members.

There are also successful precedents of listing author Twitter handles alongside emails and ORCID IDs in their articles for post-publication interactions with readers and followers. One of the relevant examples is Academic Medicine where corresponding author Twitter handles are increasingly listed in the published articles. Given the global use of Twitter for scholarly communication and dissemination of journal updates [ 47 ], it is expected that author Twitter handles will soon appear in most peer-reviewed journals. Listing author Twitter handles may increase the responsibility for post-publication communication and overall accountability for published articles.

Conclusions

Improving awareness of ethical authorship and updating related journal instructions may help fairly credit individuals who deserve authorship. Perceptions of scholarly contributions and authorship criteria may vary across academic disciplines. However, adapting and adhering to the authorship recommendations of the ICMJE, CSE and COPE may curb numerous ethical problems.

Journal editors should employ strategies for evaluating author profiles and integrating their digital identifiers with published works. Authors, in turn, should familiarize with acceptable authorship criteria and fulfil their functions at pre- and post-publication stages. By adhering to authorship norms, editors and authors may prevent other forms of misconduct and ensure the integrity of published contents.

All are invited to watch the meeting on Facebook channel of the Reumatologia/Rheumatology journal, the official edition of the National Institute of Geriatrics, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation and Polish Society for Rheumatology at @ReumatologiaJ

https://www.facebook.com/ReumatologiaJ/

This article overviews authorship criteria, author identifiers and online profiling platforms, common instances of inappropriate authorship, and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers, and editors of scholarly journals. This is the first review in a series of articles devoted to scientific writing and editing. Related topics were discussed during the two-day online workshop titled “Good practices in the writing of scientific articles” organized under the patronage of the journal Reumatologia on 18 and 19 November 2020.

Editorial Team of Reumatologia

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Katz and Carter Publish Research on Public Land Management Tools and User Preferences

Post date: 

Dr. Juniper Katz, along with co-author David P. Carter, published a paper in the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning that examines how public lands users respond to different land management policy tools. Using a survey experiment that varies the imposition of fees and quotas in hypothetical scenarios, they analyzed U.S. rock climbers’ resistance or receptiveness to visiting public lands climbing destinations. Their results showed that participants are most resistant to management tools that impose financial burdens. User receptiveness increases, however, when exclusive public land benefits can be secured. They showed that land management policy tool receptiveness is conditioned by household income and desire for solitude in recreation. The study's contribution is to illustrate the theoretical utility of accounting for institutionally contingent shifts in resource good types, while also raising concerns regarding the exclusionary potential of land management policies, particularly in regards to lower-income users. Their study offers guidance for land managers and policymakers aiming to balance conservation, recreational access, and use by shedding light on the interplay between management policies, user characteristics, and types of goods.

Link to article:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2330531

Share this page:

Upcoming events, sign up for our job bulletin.

Learn about Public Policy Jobs & Internships

School of Public Policy Newsletter

Sign up to get all the latest news from SPP

Search the SPP Website

Skip to Content

• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Faculty & Research

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

Facts Ignored: The Truth is Flexible When Falsehoods Support Political Beliefs

You are here.

This paper presents results from a series of online surveys—conducted among American voters during and after the (President Donald) Trump administration—that show how voters (both Republican and Democratic) provide explicit moral justification for politicians’ statements that flagrantly violate the norm of fact-grounding. Such justification is inconsistent with prevailing theory, whereby partisan voters’ tendency (due either to laziness or bias) to mistake misinformation for fact is the only factor responsible for their positive response to misinformation purveyed by partisan standard bearers. The studies presented in this paper provide consistent evidence of such factual flexibility. Yet they also provide consistent evidence of moral flexibility, whereby voters justify demagogic fact-flouting as an effective way of proclaiming a deeply resonant political “truth.” A key implication is that political misinformation cannot be fully eliminated by getting voters to distinguish fact from fiction; voters’ moral orientations may be such that they prefer fact-flouting. More general lessons pertain to the role of democratic norms in liberal democracies and to how moral orientations relate to perceived interests.

Why do people support politicians who make blatantly false statements?

A forthcoming study dug into this phenomenon and found that people knowingly support falsehoods when it aligns with their personal politics.

The research, led by Minjae Kim of Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business and co-authored by Oliver Hahl of Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business and Ezra W. Zuckerman Sivan of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management, sought to discern why people support politicians who disseminate information that is not truthful.

Read the full article here.

• Share via Twitter
• Share via Facebook
• Share via Google Plus
• Share via LinkedIn
• Share via E-mail
• Leeds Faculty Directory
• Faculty in the News
• Select Faculty Publications
• Frascona Teaching Excellence Award