COPE GUIDELINES: AUTHORSHIP
Truth is important in science, but the pursuit of truth is subordinate to the goal of understanding (Parsons, 2014, p. 233).
The process of publishing research is guided by a set of principles that aid in developing and sustaining a high level of trust in the dissemination of research findings. One institution that provides guidelines for publishing research is the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE; see https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation). COPE’s purpose statement is to “educate and advance knowledge in methods of safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record” (COPE, July 22, 2020, p. our Purpose). Their guidelines are directed broadly to include authorship, journals, and institutions.
COPE'S MISSION PROVIDED
The mission of COPE is structured around three primary core principles:
-
Providing practical resources to educate and support their members.
-
Providing leadership in thinking on publication ethics.
-
Offering a neutral, professional voice in current debates.
One of the goals found within COPE is leadership. Their goal is to provide leadership that applies, disseminates, and practices their guidelines for COPE members and affiliates. This Editorial is directed to disseminate COPE's guidelines to readers who are not yet familiar with COPE.
AUTHORSHIP
Authorship is defined by COPE as follows:
The term authorship can refer to the creator or originator of an idea (eg, the author of the theory of relativity) or the individual or individuals who develop and bring to fruition the product that disseminates intellectual or creative works (eg, the author of a poem or a scholarly article). Authorship conveys significant privileges, responsibilities, and legal rights; in the scholarly arena, it also forms the basis for rewards and career advancement. Various disciplines have norms, guidelines, and rules governing authorship; some of those rules preserve the lineage of ideas or works, assign credit for the conception, implementation and analysis of studies or experiments to validate theory or explain hypotheses, and the accrual writing of work to disseminate knowledge. Authors are accountable for following discipline-specific guidelines when they engage in authorship activities; journal editors and publishers are accountable for making author guidelines transparent and appropriate for the medium and genre (scholarly books, journal article, creative writing). At a minimum, authors should guarantee that they have participated in creating the work as presented and that they have not violated any other author's legal rights (eg, copyright) in the process (COPE, 2019, p. 3).
A few key points relating to authorship that should be highlighted include the originator of an idea, guidelines established by other disciplines and one’s affiliated institution, and accountability.
Originator
Authorship includes those who originated the idea for the theory, conceptual model, or research proposal. This includes researchers who helped to establish a research proposal, either funded or not funded, and those who were solicited as collaborators to work on the project. While the initial researcher or researchers would constitute authors and are typically the corresponding author(s) when submitting an article, authorship also includes other researchers who helped to develop the research.
Authorship should be decided at the beginning of a research project to prevent exclusionary practices. However, anyone who fails to contribute during the research activities could be removed from the author list. This decision should be made by all authors rather than the lead author.
Other considerations relate to reviewing a draft of a potential submission. Reviewing an article for a colleague does not constitute enough of a contribution to be listed as an author. Only if a problem was identified and the reviewer made recommendations or edits to resolve the issue would a review be a sufficient contribution. At this time, it would be up to the authors to determine whether this contribution was worth including the reviewer as an author. However, in general, only reviewing and editing a draft does not constitute authorship.
The American Psychological Association (APA) provides the following “Scorecard” to aid researchers in identifying authorship for a research submission: https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf. Using this scorecard, authors identify contribution based on the following activities:
-
Conceptualizing a research idea
-
Refining/crystallizing a research idea
-
Literature search: Summarizing literary pieces (e.g., articles, book chapters, etc.)
-
Creating a research design (e.g., counterbalancing, randomization to conditions, survey design, etc.)
-
Selecting an instrument/a measure; instrument construction
-
Selection of statistical tests/analyses
-
Performing statistical analyses and computations (including computer work)
-
Interpretation of statistical analyses
-
Manuscript:
∘ Writing an introduction section
∘ Writing a methods section
∘ Writing a results section
∘ Writing a discussion section
∘ Writing a conclusive summary
∘ Writing limitations of the study
∘ Writing future directions of the study
-
Managing the submission process:
∘ Responding to reviewers' feedback
∘ Making changes based on reviewer’s feedback
Discipline Guidelines
The author guidelines for Performance Improvement Quarterly (PIQ) can be found at https://ispi.org/general/custom.asp?page=PIQuarterly. Authors must be familiar with the published guidelines for the journal to which they are submitting. The rejection of a submission could occur because the authors did not adhere to a few simple guidelines made available in the journal's author guidelines. One example could be in how a submission is formatted. If a submission is formatted using Modern Language Association style or some number citation format, it will be rejected because PIQ’s author guidelines require articles to be formatted using current APA formatting guidelines.
Some disciplines may require specific guidelines for research studies. For example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that an author must meet the following four criteria:
-
Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
-
Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content; AND
-
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
-
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. (ICMJE, 2024, p. Who is an author?)
Other disciplines may have specific guidelines to be followed before a published article can be accepted within that discipline. The authors are responsible for knowing which requirements are called for from both their discipline and the journal to which they are submitting.
Accountability
As stated in the definition of authorship, authors are responsible for providing accurate information when submitting an article and identifying authors for any submission. The names on any published article will be available for the remainder of one’s career. The names listed should be those who contributed to the research and not those who were in due favor. The selection of authors becomes an ethical issue and should not be taken lightly. If colleagues supported the research study by reviewing drafts or providing time/space at one’s institutional office, these people could be acknowledged for their support. However, authorship should be carefully selected only for those who contributed to the research.
Other issues could arise that would question the authorship listed in a submission. For example, if plagiarism is found in the submission, it would question the authorship of the submission. The higher the similarity score for a submission (high similarity equates to content similar to previously published works), the less likely it is that the listed authors made a unique contribution. This point also highlights the importance of acknowledging and respecting content that has been copyrighted. If content that has been copyrighted is used without permission, authorship could be questionable.
AUTHORSHIP AND AI
As previously mentioned, if a submitted article has been identified as plagiarizing too much content, it raises suspicion of authorship. Typically, the editor rejects the articles. However, more stringent punishment mechanisms could be applied. Similarly, the use of AI is a new territory for writing and publishing. We acknowledge that AI technologies can aid in research and writing and can ultimately result in a better product. However, we caution authors from using AI as a replacement for critical thinking.
This is a new area, and many new policies and guidelines for using AI in research will be developed. I do appreciate the guidelines provided by ICMJE. Their guidelines for using AI in research are provided below:
At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, If AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section…. Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that includes the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations (ICJME, 2024, p. Artificial Intelligence).
CONCLUSION
Authorship guidelines aim to aid and support researchers, not provide constraints. By discussing authorship among all authors at the beginning of a project, researchers will have a general understanding of what constitutes authorship for the project. This should reduce conflicts regarding the ordering and listing of authors for a project. If disputes arise, then the initial guidelines should be used to help resolve any conflict.
The bottom line is that each author puts their name on the submitted research article. In doing so, each author acknowledges that all listed authors have met the requirements to be listed as an author, meaning that everyone listed has substantially contributed to the overall research effort.
SUPPORT PIQ
One of the editors’ goals is the continued growth and advancement of the journal’s reach to various disciplines, industries, and markets. However, to accomplish this goal, the journal needs continued support from existing reviewers and the addition of new reviewers to the peer review team. If you are interested in participating in peer review for PIQ submissions, please create an account and sign up as a reviewer at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/piq.
New submissions from the performance improvement communities that meet the minimum requirements, as highlighted in previous editorials in this journal (Turner, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019a, 2019b), are encouraged. If you are interested in having your manuscript considered for publication in PIQ, present your research study after reviewing the minimal requirements highlighted in the previously mentioned editorials as well as the author guidelines at https://ispi.org/page/PIQuarterly.
The editor and associate editors are here to help you with your publication. Do you have an idea for a research article and wonder if it is suitable for PIQ? Contact the editorial team for feedback. The editorial staff at PIQ works with submitting authors to move their articles toward publication. The editorial staff are active in the review process and continue to work with authors through rounds of revisions, if needed, to prepare their manuscripts for publication. If you have a performance improvement-related research article that you would like to submit, please do so at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/piq. Be sure that the manuscript is related to performance improvement and meets the minimal guidelines presented in this and other editorials at PIQ.
REVIEWERS
Peer review is necessary for a journal's success and reputation. We thank our current reviewers for their time and dedication to PIQ. We need continual support from our reviewers to grow the number of active reviewers for the journal. As mentioned in previous editorials, additional reviewers must provide critical and informative reviews for manuscripts in the publication pipeline and future submissions. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, please contact any member of the editorial team: John Turner (john.turner@unt.edu), Rose Baker (rose.baker@unt.edu), or Hamett Brown (hamett.brown@usm.edu).
