Introduction
The provisions of authorship are numerous but controversial. Additionally, it is ethical to recognize credible authors for their exemplary works. Evidently, academic icons undergo massive ethical challenges while executing various aspects of authorship. Critically, it is appropriate for researchers to consider interpersonal issues and honesty in data collection (Feeser & Simon 2008, p. 964). This can be considered as an explicit component of professional behavior. Nonetheless, authorship credit should be observed and executed accordingly regardless of the situation. This paper discusses the general problems associated with assigning appropriate authorship to a manuscript or scientific report. Additionally, there are personal opinions regarding the aspects of authorship. It is important for University Research Integrity Officers to establish and implement policies that will guide the entire authorship phenomenon.
The general problems associated with assigning authorship to a manuscript or scientific report
There are numerous problems associated with assigning authorship to manuscripts and scientific reports. For example, in multiple authorship, it has been a challenge to identify which author should be credited most why. The entire scenario appears simple; nonetheless, it is difficult to recognize every contributor in an academic report. Not every individual who contributes to the development of an academic paper can be granted the rights of authorship. As much as there is need to minimize such rights, it is also important to provide due authorship credits to the concerned authors (DiBartola, 2011). Ethically, establishing the exact authors helps in establishing the credibility of authorship. In this regard, a problem exists on how to credit the authors and who to assume the errands for the work. The latter provision is relevant whenever there are defamatory or court cases associated with the concerned manuscript (Berthold-Bond 2011). Most authors/contributors do not want to accept the responsibility of their work. They would rather contribute their opinions than accept the responsibility associated with authorship. It is important to understand the provisions of this authorship phenomenon despite the looming challenges. This is a vital provision when considered critically in regard to authorship endorsement. For example, since funding agencies, organizations, and other agencies use publication records as a measure of reputation, it is vital to assign authorship aptly (Kovacs 2012). Precisely, it is difficult to determine who should or should not be listed as an author. This forms the major ethical problem encountered in the entire authorship phenomenon.
Another problem in this context regards honorary authorship. This is a situation where a reputable author, who did not even participate in the development of a given publication, is listed as one of the legitimate authors. This occurs just to enhance the credibility of the concerned project. The problem in this context is that other legitimate authors/contributors to the concerned project will not be recognized by the readers. They will be silhouetted by the other reputable authors who did not even contribute to the development of the concerned report. This is a critical situation in the context of authorship. Surprisingly, the used author can deny the responsibilities emerging from the contents of the project. For example, a study executed on this matter found that nearly 19% of the reviewed papers contained honorary authors. Concurrently, Cochrane reviews contained 39% of such authors (Feeser & Simon 2008, p. 964).
Another problem associated with assigning authorship to a manuscript or scientific report is coercion from senior members of the research team. Such seniors might have not contributed significantly to the project; however, they will force their names to be listed in the bibliography page. This might be controversial when reviewed critically. The situation usually denies credible contributors their due recognition. Another problem (termed as ghost authorship) is where credible authors, due to their inferiority, are deliberately excluded in the list of authors. For example, at least 75% of recently published academic papers have registered ghost authorship (Feeser & Simon 2008, p. 964).
Another problem regards the listing of authors. This has been controversial since some authors/contributors demand to be prioritized regardless of the levels of their contribution. Concurrently, the use of alphabetical order might interfere with the reputation of some authors and major contributors (Elliott & Stern 1997, p. 138). Ethically, it is advisable to prioritize major contributors in any manuscript or scientific report. However, this has not been the case as indicated earlier. The situation has created considerable problems in regard to reputation and recognition. For example, it is inappropriate to prioritize authors who have contributed minimally in the concerned project. Additionally, it is crucial to agree that the order in which authors are listed normally signify how much credit they deserve.
Personal opinions regarding authorship and polices recommended to clarify appropriate authorship on manuscripts or research reports
Ethically, it is important to provide proper credit to the legitimate authors of any manuscript or scientific report. This should occur regardless of the profiles of the concerned contributors. Reputable authors should not be prioritized based on their fame. Other infamous authors deserve the same right to be credited. It is unethical to prejudice legitimate authors on discriminative grounds. It important to endorse credit where it is due despite the challenges and controversies faced. Authorship should consider ethical aspects at all costs. This will help emerging authors to grow considerably. Problems faced in the provisions of authorship can be evaded upon introduction and embracement of ethics in the matter. This is a critical provision when argued comprehensively. Additionally, senior members of a research team should not force their names into any publications if, in any case, they did not contribute to its development. Positions should not dictate the aspects of authorship as shown in some situations. The names of authors who are honoured globally should not just be used (minus their contribution) to boost the credibility of a given publication. This is ethically erroneous. Additionally, let authors be listed/ordered based on the intensity of their contributions.
There are various policies that the University Research Integrity Officer or the Head of Division of Scientific Organization should establish, ratify, and embrace to elucidate the aspects of appropriate authorship on manuscripts or research reports. The first policy should establish and enforce the authenticity of authors in any research report. Additionally, some policies should eradicate the prejudicial listing of authors in research reports. Ethics should also be promoted in the provisions of authorship. Authors who do not observe ethics in their works should meet stringent disciplinary measures.
Conclusion
Assigning credible authorship to various manuscripts and research reports has been a daunting task. There are various problems associated with the provisions of authorship. This ranges from undue inclusion of authors who hardly contributed to the concerned work to prejudicial listing. Personally, authorship should observe various ethical provisions. Nonetheless, academic officials and institutions should enact policies that will govern this phenomenon.
References
Berthold-Bond, D 2011, The ethics of authorship: communication, seduction, and death in Hegel and Kierkegaard, Fordham University Press, New York, NY.
DiBartola, S 2011, Authorship, Web.
Elliott, D & Stern, J 1997, Research ethics: a reader, University Press of New England, Hanover, NH.
Feeser, V & Simon, J 2008, The Ethical Assignment of Authorship in Scientific Publications: Issues and Guidelines, Web.
Kovacs, J 2012, Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article?, Web.