Awkies! A Practical Guide for Addressing the Uncomfortable in Authorship Assignments

So, you've crafted the manuscript, and now comes the task of creating that author list. Sounds straightforward, doesn't it? Well, not always! Determining authorship can be one of the most delicate aspects of the research process. In the realm of academia, number of publications and citations stand as a key metric for measuring work productivity. Therefore, it's only natural that if a researcher finds themselves omitted from a paper, it can lead to a cascade of emotions—anger, frustration, and sometimes even direct conflict.

On the flip side, there's a growing demand for each author to have made a substantial contribution and to meet the publication standards for qualifying as an author. In the following sections, I'll guide you through my approach to navigating the intricacies that may arise when determining authorship for your manuscript.

Establish definitions for co-authorship

Understanding what qualifies an individual for co-authorship is essential to maintaining fairness and transparency. Journals often define authorship criteria, offering a good starting point. However, your chosen target journal might not provide such clarity, or you may not have reached the stage of selecting a target journal.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) offers guidelines widely referenced in medical research. According to these guidelines, an author is expected to:

• Contribute significantly to the conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis of the study.

• Draft or critically revise the manuscript for important intellectual content.

• Approve the final version of the manuscript.

• Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity are appropriately addressed.

The qualifications for authorship appear straightforward. However, accepted standards can vary between fields and may have more flexibility than the outlined criteria. There is also ambiguity in the expression, 'contribute significantly'; also termed, 'substantial contribution.' Adding further complexity, decisions on authorship often involve relationships and politics, potentially overshadowing the actual level of contribution (rightly or wrongly).

Be intentional in choosing your co-authors

Your mentor or senior collaborator will likely offer guidance on selecting co-authors. In some cases, the collaboration team may already be in place before your involvement. Nevertheless, it's important to have a discussion with your mentor at the project's outset to clarify the individuals involved and their anticipated contributions. While the role of co-authors might evolve over time, taking a deliberate approach from the beginning helps prevent misunderstandings later on.

If you are an early-career researcher and are leading the project, it's crucial to consider the desirable traits of collaborators when choosing your team.

This may include;

• Expertise and Complementary Skills: Embracing a diversity of skills enriches the overall quality and breadth of the research.

• Reliability and Commitment:

• Communication Skills:

• Collaborative Spirit:

It's important to note that inviting a collaborator with high expertise but lacking in the other mentioned skills may create challenges for you in the future, potentially adding stress and delaying successful completion.

Be proactive - keep your co-authors engaged

As the project unfolds, investing time in effective communication will facilitate a smoother manuscript writing process.

Consider the following steps:

• Regularly check in with each collaborator, ensuring they are content with their assigned tasks.

• Provide updates on the project's progress, acknowledging individual contributions from collaborators (for example, via regular email updates).

• Establish reasonable deadlines for task completion - avoid last-minute requests like 'can you review this abstract by tomorrow?'

• Diplomatically escalate communication if tasks are not completed, seeking to understand any barriers to completion.

• When sharing draft manuscripts with the group, include the author list. This proactive step allows sufficient time for addressing any concerns related to author order/presence/absence and (hopefully) prevents last-minute disgruntlement.

Address any dubious reasons for including a co-author

Despite the best intentions, projects may not always unfold as planned. Collaborators might relocate or change institutions, get busier, or lose interest in a project, leading to a lack of a 'significant' contribution. However, what if your mentor recommends including co-authors at the manuscript stage who, well, don't exactly meet the ICMJE criteria mentioned above?

Possible reasons for this scenario may include:

• The collaborator contributed to the project, but their specific work didn't find its way into the paper for various reasons.

• The collaborator, despite being junior in research, made some sort of contribution, and the mentor wishes to support their career by granting authorship.

• The individual provided funds for the study or made other valuable contributions (such as co-supervision of a degree), even though they had no direct involvement; this is often termed 'gift' authorship.

• The person is a renowned figure, adding credibility to the paper; this is referred to as 'guest' authorship.

• Reciprocity is at play: the person included your mentor as an author on their paper, and now your mentor wants to return the favour.

• The individual was initially a collaborator but ended up contributing very little. Still, the mentor wants to avoid causing offence.

These reasons may be perceived as unethical when considering someone for co-authorship, and, clearly, some are! In many cases, it might be more appropriate to recognise their contribution through an acknowledgment. If you genuinely believe that the contribution falls short of the standard criteria for authorship, you should discuss this with your mentor. Maintaining high ethical standards is crucial to preserving the integrity of the publication process.

Managing ‘insignificant’ contributions in co-authorship

When assessing contributions that fall on the borderline of 'significance,' adopting an inclusive rather than exclusive approach can help avoid burning bridges. Employ a highly sensitive test of authorship to help you ensure that any eligible individuals make it on to the paper. As an analogy, consider this challenge akin to the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests. The ‘disease’ or condition is authorship according to defined published guidelines. The 'test' results are determined by your assessment (subjective or otherwise) of each collaborator's contributions. The face emoticons represent the potential feelings of the collaborator. I say, ‘potential’, because people don’t always react as you anticipate!

In a perfect world, we would have no false positives or negatives but it is rarely that clear. Most researchers would probably err on the side of caution and be inclusive (i.e. avoid false negatives). This inclination might explain why your mentor suggests including someone on the paper, even if you perceive their level of contribution to be less substantial.

If your feelings are still torn, seek the perspective of a more experienced researcher to assess whether the contribution meets the criterion for being 'substantial'. It may be best to omit the identities of those involved or ask for general advice, without specifics. They may help you to step back and have a different perspective. Not every author will invest the same amount of time or effort; 'middle' authors might contribute relatively less, especially compared to the lead or first author who does most of the grunt work. However, it is important to recognise a person’s efforts in research, regardless of scale, and what determines ‘substantial’ is highly subjective. Although it may bother you that a middle author didn’t do ‘much’, it may be a better use of your energy to let it go.

Dropping a co-author at the manuscript stage

A much less common scenario (as most individuals play nice!) is your mentor suggesting the exclusion of a co-author from the paper. You might even find yourself contemplating the removal of a co-author before submission.

Potential reasons for this action may include:

• The individual's contribution, such as data collection, was either omitted from the final manuscript or had to be redone due to errors.

• The person did not fulfil their commitment, whether in terms of data collection or analysis.

• The individual ceased contributing to the drafting and revision of the manuscript.

• The person did not provide approval for the final manuscript before submission.

• Authors experienced a disagreement over the paper's content (in this case, it may be the collaborator withdrawing their co-authorship)

If you disagree with your mentor's decision to remove a co-author, you might consider referencing universally acknowledged guidelines, such as the ICMJE guidelines. In certain instances, it might be more suitable to recognise the person's contribution through an acknowledgment, rather than co-authorship.

Have a face-to-face conversation with the person explaining why you cannot include them as an author. Also, seek permission before including someone's name in the acknowledgments section. While your intentions may be well-meaning, individuals may feel uneasy with their name appearing in the acknowledgments, for various reasons, so obtaining their consent is always advisable.

So, what do you do when someone returns a manuscript with minimal changes, perhaps just a comma here and there? While it might bother you, appearing as if they gave the manuscript a cursory review and merely 'checked the box,' it's important to refrain from passing too much judgment. Consider the possibility that they devoted significant time to reading it carefully and contemplating each aspect, but their style of revision is to only make suggestions that they felt strongly about. If you were to remove them as an author after they invested this time, it could understandably offend them. The point is, you cannot know the amount of intellectual time that was put into the endeavour, so it is better to give the benefit of the doubt.

Bringing a co-author back into the fold

If someone drops off from contributing to the study or manuscript, a gentle way to re-establish a co-author relationship is to approach the person and ask them if they would still like to be involved. Do your very best to contact them by email, phone or in person to extend this courtesy. Ideally, they will either state that they would like to still be involved, and get cracking with the tasks allocated to them, or they will decline to be further involved. Seek to understand any barriers they have for completing tasks and ask for their input on a reasonable and achievable deadline.

If, despite your best efforts at open communication via a range of channels, a co-author fails to revise or approve the final manuscript, there comes a point where you will have to submit the manuscript without their name. It's imperative never to submit a manuscript with someone's name without their approval of the final version; a rule that also extends to abstracts! In the case of a sizable group of co-authors, you can convey this message via a group email. Make it clear that if there's no response approving the final manuscript by a specified date, especially after multiple revision attempts with no answer, it will be interpreted as a lack of interest in contributing authorship. However, before officially excluding their name, it's best to reach out, either through a call or in-person conversation, to inform them that the paper will be submitted without their inclusion as a co-author.

Conversation openers might include:

“So, I’ve emailed around the revised manuscript a few times and we are ready to submit. I haven’t heard from you at this stage. Are you happy to not be a co-author on this paper?”

“Remember the project we were working on last year? We are ready to submit the manuscript but I haven’t heard from you with regard to revising the manuscript. Do you think you could do this within the next week, or would you prefer not to be a co-author?”

“You must be so busy with your workload right now and I hate to bother you. But we really need to get this manuscript submitted for the project. Did you still want to be involved with the paper?”

What if you are still stuck?

Finally, if you cannot reach agreement among co-authors as to who should be on the paper (or even order of authors), it may be helpful to talk to an independent party that can provide you with advice. This may include a trusted colleague with experience in collaborating and publishing scientific papers, or a counsellor, such as those available with an Employee Assistance Program or Student Services. Or both! Given the sensitivity of the topic and potential for conflict, it is prudent to ask for confidentiality. It may be helpful to seek mediation for any difficult conversations between individuals.

Final thoughts

Choose your co-authors wisely

• Communication skills and reliability are just as important as expertise

Manage your co-authors proactively

• Allocate tasks clearly

• Communicate regularly on progress

• Set reasonable deadlines

Refrain from including authors that do not meet authorship standards

• Be aware of the standards for authorship, especially for the journal you intend to submit to

Err on the side of inclusivity, if the size of the contribution is questionable

• Avoid false negatives and, potentially, damaging relationships

Do your best to re-engage with authors that dropped off during the writing stage

• Seek to understand their barriers for contributing to the manuscript

Seek mediation or counselling if the situation cannot be reconciled

What has been some of your awkward moments for authorship issues? Tell us below!