Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils

Responsible authorship and peer review.

In this article the basic principles of responsible authorship and peer review are surveyed, with special emphasis on (a) guidelines for refereeing archival journal articles and proposals; and (b) how these guidelines should be taken into account at all stages of writing.

Real Fake Real Fake

Avoiding Inappropriate Authorship

Appropriate authorship is one of the pillars of publication ethics. Substantive contributors listed as authors should be distinguished from those deserving acknowledgments. The updated recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) clearly define authorship and contributorship (1). The ICMJE document reflects on implications of the ethical assignment of author...

Inappropriate Authorship and Kinship in Research Evaluation

To curb the issue of allocating the same credit to all co-authors of any multi-author paper, it has been proposed to give the greater credit share to the first author and lesser shares to the co-authors, depending on their contribution and position in the byline.5 Moreover, Shen and Barabási6 developed an algorithm that attempts to quantify the credit share of co-authors. Consistent with this i...

Designing integrated research integrity training: authorship, publication, and peer review

This paper describes the experience of an academic institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), developing training courses about research integrity practices in authorship, publication, and Journal Peer Review. The importance of providing research integrity training in these areas is now widely accepted; however, it remains an open question how best to conduct this training. For...