Who should be an author? Let us discuss this delicate issue.

Guidelines on authorship

The criteria for authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1985; 2002) are scarcely known to many scientists. And even if known, they are often ignored, as they are considered too restrictive. According to the current criteria, as of January 27, 2002 (www.icmje.org), all persons designated as authors of a paper should have

1. (1) conceived and planned the work that led to the paper or interpreted the evidence it presents, or both;

2. (2) written the paper, or reviewed successive versions and taken part in the revision process; and

3. (3) approved the final version.

As all three conditions must be met, this implies that a skilled laboratory technician who does the necessary spadework or a clinician contributing patient material is unworthy of acknowledgment as a coauthor. So, then, which guidelines for authorship are applied in the real world?

In the real world of research, most investigations nowadays are necessarily made by a team. Each member contributes different talents and skills. Irrespective of the nature of their contributions – intellectual (creative) or practical (doing the experiments) – all members of the team are usually acknowledged in the author byline.

The names also require some sort of ranking. The most prominent position, heading the list or in last place, is usually occupied by the team leader (often the author).