Letter from the Editor

Of Ghosts, Gifts and Good Conduct

There seems to be an ongoing problem with authorships. Your editor, who is seeing new manuscripts every day, has not ceased to wonder and has learned a lot from doing so. One encounters case reports with 12 authors and extensive clinical studies with just one. In the former case there are probably more authors than the patient did see doctors. In the latter, one must admire or rather pity a busy surgeon still able to conduct, evaluate, and finally compile a manuscript covering a comprehensive study on his own. Is it the task of an editor to challenge such claims? After all, he cannot know the details behind the scenes, the dark bottom of the vat of research. It is exactly this innocent ignorance which puts him into the perfect position to do so.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts [http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html]. Those encompass a wealth of aspects of scientific publishing, both practical and ethical. A definition of “Authorship and Contributorship” is the first item under “Ethical Considerations”. There, one can read that:

“Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3. …” Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.” (http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html)

and much more. So much for the ideal world. In daily practice it is quite common to have an army of “Gift authors” (listed, but did not fulfil the above criteria) who subdue the wretched, invisible “Ghost authors” (not listed, but would fulfil the criteria). Many journals now ask for a form on which each author has to define his/her part in the manuscript, at the same time stating that no one has been left out, and has to sign in person. This may seem finicky, over-ambitious and eventually useless, but it is a further hurdle hindering cheating.

Cheating is an ugly word, but manipulating a list of authors is exactly that. Maybe it is helpful that leading funding organizations such as the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) do no longer require complete lists of publications in their grant applications but rather a limited selection of relevant ones. This policy should eventually abolish the misconception that sheer quantity of publications is of any importance. On the contrary, there are numerous examples that eminent discoveries are not the result of serial production but isolated accomplishments. For a critical reader an ubiquitous so-called scientist who appears on countless publications covering multiple and diverse topics must appear untrustworthy. And if one does not trust the list of authors, such a seemingly banal formality, how can one trust the scientific content? It is, for example, not obligatory to list the head of a department on every single paper just to drive home the point that it comes from Elsewhere University. The institution is listed separately anyhow, and it is a much greater honor if the reader, when recognizing it, thinks “Wow, another one from Prof Cutting-Edge's group. He must be a great guy.” But try selling that to the Chief.

It is the foremost task of an independent editor to strive for the greatest scientific accuracy possible, because he is responsible for the content of the journal. Sometimes this involves unpleasant enquiries requiring answers which may lead to painful decisions. Imagine this scenario: somebody calls and asks you to briefly explain the aim, methods and results of a manuscript where you are listed as a co-author. On top of that there are just a few questions for discussion. If you can cope with that, you are an author. If you can't, you're not.