Awards and Award Management: Policies

Authorship Guidelines

1. General Principles and Right Conduct
   One of the missions of the medical school is to foster the discovery and application of new knowledge through basic and clinical research in the biomedical and relevant social sciences. Coupled with this mission is the responsibility to communicate truthfully this new knowledge to the rest of the scientific community. When publishing results of biomedical research, authors should adhere to certain standards that will assure the quality and integrity of the publication. Specially, authors should:
   1. If possible, report results and their verification in a peer-reviewed forum;
   2. Report all relevant data including conflicting data if pertinent to the hypothesis in question;
   3. Acknowledge the work of others that is relevant to the context of the study and its interpretation;
   4. Refrain from redundant primary publications of the same data;
   5. Take ultimate responsibility for the scholarly character, accuracy, and conduct of the research performed under their supervision;
   6. Present research in appropriate scientific forums before reports are released to the press; and
   7. Alert editors and readers of potential conflicts of interest that may affect how the article will be interpreted.

Fabricating data, falsifying data, and/or knowingly representing the work of others as one's own are serious violations of our mission and the public trust and constitute scientific misconduct.

2. Criteria for Authorship
   Authorship refers to the listing of names of participants in all written communications of data and their interpretation to the scientific community. Authorship is the fulfillment of the responsibility to communicate scientific research to society and is the primary means for assigning credit for a scientist's contributions to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Authorship should be given generously, but only to those who have contributed significantly to the research, are prepared to stand behind their findings, and have reviewed the entire manuscript. All authors of a scholarly publication should meet the following four criteria:

1. Participate substantially in conception, design, and execution of the study, or in the analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Participate substantially in the drafting of the manuscript or in the substantive editing of the manuscript;
3. Give final approval of the version of the manuscript to be published; and
4. Be able to explain and defend in public or scholarly settings that portion of the study for which he or she was directly responsible, including potential conflicts of interest.

A claim of authorship by, or assignment of authorship to, persons who may have been associated in some way with a study but do not meet the four criteria above is considered highly inappropriate. The referral of patients included in a clinical study does not in and of itself warrant co-authorship status. Individuals who have made lesser contributions such as providing advice, occasional analyses, subject/patient material, space, or who may have supported the research in other ways, should be acknowledged. The practice of permitting honorary authorship is unacceptable and should be actively discouraged.

3. Responsible Author
   One author, designated as the Responsible Author must assume overall responsibility for each publication (e.g., primary research report, abstract, review article, book chapter) submitted from the medical school. The Responsible Author is typically the faculty member who leads the study and who assumes the responsibility for coordinating and completing the work, drafting of the manuscript, satisfying pertinent rules for submitting the manuscript and any required revisions, and coordinating responses of the group to inquiries or challenges. The Responsible Author should exercise due diligence in assuring the validity of the entire manuscript.

The selection of the Responsible Author, inclusion of collaborator(s) as co-author(s), and the order of authorship should ideally be determined by the research team as a whole. Decisions regarding authorship and its order should, when possible, be determined before the study begins and any disputes resolved at that time. A written memo attesting to this determination is valuable documentation if a dispute subsequently arises. Changes in authorship, which take place as a study proceeds, should similarly be documented in writing. The Responsible Author should assure that all collaborators are appropriately recognized and that study collaborators listed as co-authors meet the criteria for authorship described herein. The Responsible Author does not necessarily have to be the first author.

The Responsible Author should assure that all co-authors have had the opportunity to approve the final version of a manuscript or abstract, that each co-author has reviewed the portions of the manuscript or abstract representing his or her contribution, and each is willing to support that material.

Each co-author must consent to authorship prior to submission of any manuscript bearing his or her name. In addition, each co-author should practice due diligence to assure the validity of the manuscript.

4. Students, Fellows, and Research Associates
   All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship as defined herein. Faculty should be aware of their responsibility to ensure that students, postdoctoral fellows, and other research associates participate in the preparation of manuscripts and are recognized as authors in publications covering the results of research in which they were active participants.
5. Multi-Authorship/Multi-Center Manuscripts
   These criteria are considered important because there has been a gradual diffusion of responsibility for multi-authored or collaborative studies that has led to the publication of papers for which no single author was prepared to take full responsibility.

Multi-authorship, including authorship on papers from multi-center studies, raises special issues, such as the ability of an author to evaluate all aspects of a study and the sequence of listing of authors. Authors should discuss these issues openly before initiating a multi-authored project and repeatedly during the course of such work. To promote this process in multi-center studies, specially charged Publication Committees are often invaluable (see section on Disputes over Authorship).

All authors should approve the final version of a manuscript and should be prepared to take public responsibility for the work. It is recognized, however, that medical studies often involve investigators from several specialties, and it may not always be possible for a single investigator to confirm each piece of data used in the written report. It is therefore the responsibility of each participating investigator to be actively involved in verifying the sections of a manuscript that discuss his or her specialty area, and to assure all co-authors that the sections are accurate and valid.

6. Disputes over Authorship
   In general, authorship issues and related matters should be freely discussed and decided upon early during the research process and prior to writing of the manuscript. However, agreements relating to authorship may need to be changed during the collection of data and preparation of the manuscript. Possible disagreements include interpretation of the criteria for authorship, order of listing of authors, editorial control of content and focus of the manuscript, selection of journal or other publication media, and choice of Responsible Author.
   1. A procedure for resolution of disputes over authorship is outlined along with a timetable for each step. It is recognized that extensions in the time to resolve a dispute may be necessary. When this occurs, the reason(s) for the delay in completion should be documented in the final report. All matters related to dissolution of authorship disputes should be held in a confidential manner as much as possible.

Disagreements between or among authors should be resolved in a collegial manner by the Responsible Author in consultation with the other author(s), relevant research personnel, and any other individual who claims authorship. Generally, the Responsible Author has the primary responsibility for making decisions on authorship and other matters related to the publication of manuscripts.

When matters of authorship and related issues cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner by the Responsible Author, other author(s), research personnel, and other individuals who claim authorship, the Responsible Author and/or other author(s)/ research personnel should present their controversy in writing to the Department Chair. The manuscript in question should not be submitted for publication before these issues are resolved. The Departmental Chair should meet with the individuals involved in the dispute, collect and retain appropriate information, and make a recommendation in writing as to authorship within 60 days of receiving the complaint. When the authorship dispute involves the Chair, if the Chair has a major conflict of interest, or if the dispute involves more than one department, then a neutral mediator will be appointed by the Dean's designee. The mediator should hold the rank of tenured professor and make a recommendation to the Chair within 60 days. Normally, the Chair will notify the Dean of an impasse, but the individuals involved can also make this notification directly.

In the event that a satisfactory resolution still cannot be achieved by the Departmental Chair or by a neutral mediator, then the Dean (or his or her designee) will appoint three senior faculty members (one of whom will serve as Committee Chair from departments other than the involved department(s)) to a committee to investigate the dispute. The review group will not include individuals with personal responsibility for the research, but should include faculty members with unique qualifications relative to the dispute in question (i.e., research expertise, training of graduate students, experience with clinical trials, active peer-reviewed research, etc.). In the case of disputes involving faculty member from other schools within Wake Forest University, a member of the committee should be on the faculty of the affected school. In addition, a representative from the Office of Research will serve as Executive Secretary. Within 75 days, the committee will make a recommendation in writing to the Dean and he/she will evaluate this recommendation and render a decision within 10 days. The decision of the Dean is final.

2. Disputes Over Authorship in Multi-Center Studies
   Publication, presentation, and authorship policies should be determined and accepted by all participating investigators at the beginning of any multi-center study. Specifically, it is recommended that a Publication Subcommittee representing all Investigators should be established at the beginning of any multi-center study for the purposes of expediting, coordinating, and monitoring the paper-writing processes. Inherent in these charges is the responsibility to adjudicate disputes over authorship. As with single-center studies, difficulties for a particular paper can be avoided if the identification and sequence of authors is agreed upon by all participants in advance.

If a dispute between investigators from separate centers does arise, the solution to the dispute should arise from within the organizational structure of the multi-center study. If a dispute cannot be resolved, the principle of academic freedom generally indicates that an investigator has the right to present those data for which he/she is contract custodian. However, this right should be tempered by the concept of collegial collaboration. It is unacceptable for an investigator to publish or present studies finding before the total group of study investigators has had a reasonable opportunity to do so.