, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 563–585 | Cite as

Definition of authorship in social science journals

  • Yu-Wei ChangEmail author


This study investigated authorship definitions listed on 1065 journal websites, representing seven social science disciplines. The results showed that 51.3% of the journals do not have an established authorship definition. Journals with high impact factors do not necessarily have an established authorship definition. Up to 81.1% of law journals lack authorship definitions, whereas the lowest proportion of journals having no authorship definitions was identified in the business domain. Authorship definitions were mostly accessible through hyperlinks embedded in the “instructions for authors” section of the journals’ websites. Only 3.8% of the journals directly listed authorship definitions in the instructions for authors section. A total of seven types of requirements were identified for authorship. The interdisciplinary influence of the authorship criteria developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has expanded to the social sciences. The current version of the ICMJE authorship criteria was abided by 32.9% of the journals. Authorship definitions stated by journals primarily originated from those set by editorial associations and other professional associations. However, inconsistent authorship definitions were noted between journals published by the same publishers. Journal websites should provide clear, complete, and updated authorship criteria to efficiently communicate essential information to authors.


Authorship Acknowledgment Social sciences Journals 



This work was financially supported by the Center for Research in Econometric Theory and Applications (Grant No. 107L900204) from The Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan, and by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under Grant Nos. MOST 107-3017-F-002-004 and 106-2410-H-002-094.


  1. Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2011). Responsible for research publication: International standard for editors. In A position statement developed at the 2nd world conference on research integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2018 from
  2. Al-Herz, W., Haider, H., Al-Bahhar, M., & Sadeq, A. (2014). Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: How common is it and why does it exist? Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 346–348.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., & Altman, M. (2014). Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508(7496), 312–313.Google Scholar
  4. Apgar, D. H., & Congress, E. (2005). Authorship credit: A national study of social work educators’ beliefs. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 101–112.Google Scholar
  5. Bebeau, M. J., & Monson, V. (2011). Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: Historical reflections on current practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 365–388.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.Google Scholar
  7. Bolshete, P. (2017). Authorship criteria and reporting of ethical compliance in Indian biomedical journals. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2(3), 160.Google Scholar
  8. Bosch, X., Pericas, J. M., Hernández, C., & Torrents, A. (2012). A comparison of authorship policies at top-ranked peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(1), 70–72.Google Scholar
  9. Bošnjak, L., & Marušić, A. (2012). Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines. Scientometrics, 93(3), 751–763.Google Scholar
  10. Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151–155.Google Scholar
  11. Camby, I., Delpire, V., Rouxhet, L., Morel, T., Vanderlinden, C., Van Driessche, N., et al. (2014). Publication practices and standards: Recommendations from GSK Vaccines’ author survey. Trials, 15(1), 446.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, K., & Ross, J. (2010). Publication ethics: Conflicts, copyright, permission, and authorship. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, 25(4), 263–271.Google Scholar
  13. Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 345–361.Google Scholar
  14. Cronin, B. (1991). Let the credits roll: A preliminary examination of the role played by mentors and trusted assessors in disciplinary formation. Journal of Documentation, 47(3), 227–239.Google Scholar
  15. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855–871.Google Scholar
  16. Da Silva, J. A. T. (2011). The ethics of collaborative authorship. More realistic standards and better accountability are needed to enhance scientific publication and give credit where it is due. EMBO Reports, 12(9), 889–893.Google Scholar
  17. da Silva, J. A. T., & Dobránszki, J. (2016). Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: Ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift Authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1457–1472.Google Scholar
  18. Díaz-Faes, A. A., & Bordons, M. (2017). Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 576–590.Google Scholar
  19. Favaloro, E. J. (2008). Measuring the quality of journals and journal articles: The impact factor tells but a portion of the story. Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis, 34(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  20. Fernández, J. A. (1998). The transition from an individual science to a collective one: The case of astronomy. Scientometrics, 42(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  21. Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141–1147.Google Scholar
  22. Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 222–224.Google Scholar
  23. Foster, R. D., & Ray, D. C. (2012). An ethical decision-making model to determine authorship credit in published faculty-student collaborations. Counseling and Values, 57(2), 214–228.Google Scholar
  24. Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Voronov, A. A., Gorin, S. V., Koroleva, A. M., & Kitas, G. D. (2016). Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(9), 1351–1354.Google Scholar
  25. Geelhoed, R. J., Phillips, J. C., Fischer, A. R., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics and Behavior, 17(2), 95–115.Google Scholar
  26. Gilbert, F. J., & Denison, A. R. (2003). Research misconduct. Clinical Radiology, 58(7), 499–504.Google Scholar
  27. Green, B. N., & Johnson, C. D. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration in research, education, and clinical practice: Working together for a better future. The Journal of Chiropractic Education, 29(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  28. Grgić, I. H., & Čačković, L. (2018). Guidelines for authors in Croatian scholarly journals. Information Discovery and Delivery, 46(1), 38–44. Scholar
  29. Helgesson, G. (2015). Scientific authorship and intellectual involvement in the research: Should they coincide? Medical Health Care and Philosophy, 18(2), 171–175.Google Scholar
  30. Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476.Google Scholar
  31. Hoen, W. P., Walvoort, H. C., & Overbeke, A. J. (1998). What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors’ names? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 217–218.Google Scholar
  32. Holaday, M. (1995). Authorship Credit and Ethical Guidelines. Counseling and Values, 40(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
  33. Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Ivanis, A., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Perceptions of authorship criteria: Effects of student instruction and scientific experience. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(7), 428–432.Google Scholar
  34. Huang, D. W. (2015). Temporal evolution of multi-author paper in basic sciences from 1960 to 2010. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2137–2147.Google Scholar
  35. Hwang, S. S., Song, H. H., Baik, J. H., Jung, S. L., Park, S. H., Choi, K. H., et al. (2003). Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: Analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology. Radiology, 226(1), 16–23.Google Scholar
  36. ICMJE (2018). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved October 1, 2018 from
  37. Ivanis, A., Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2008). Quantification of authors’ contributions and eligibility for authorship: Randomized study in a general medical journal. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(9), 1303–1310.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, A. H. (2003). Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 243–256.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Kassis, T. (2017). How do research faculty in the biosciences evaluate paper authorship criteria? PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183632.Google Scholar
  40. King, C. (2012). Multiauthor papers: Onward and upward. Science Watch Newsletter, 7(5), 62.Google Scholar
  41. Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A. P., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributionship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435.Google Scholar
  42. Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 1194–1210.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. Maier, G. (2006). Impact factors and peer judgment: The case of regional science journals. Scientometrics, 69(3), 651–667.Google Scholar
  44. Malički, M., Jerončić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2012). Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 189.Google Scholar
  45. Manton, E., & English, D. (2011). College of business deans’ views on undeserved authorships in business journals. The Journal of Faculty Development, 25(2), 5–11.Google Scholar
  46. Manton, E., English, D., & Brodnax, T. B. (2012). College of business faculty views on gift authorships in business journals. Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 79–85.Google Scholar
  47. Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. Plos One, 6(9), 1–17.Google Scholar
  48. Marusić, M., Bozikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gaspić, M., & Marusić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493–502.Google Scholar
  49. Mitcheson, H., Collings, S., & Siebers, R. W. (2011). Authorship Issues at a New Zealand Academic Institution. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2(3), 166–171.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, M. T., & Griffin, B. W. (2006). Identification of factors that influence authorship name placement and decisions to collaborate in peer-reviewed, education-related publications. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(2), 125–135.Google Scholar
  51. Mowatt, G., Shirran, L., Grimshaw, J. M., Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Yank, V., et al. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in cochrane reviews. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2769–2771.Google Scholar
  52. Nylenna, M., Fagerbakk, F., & Kierulf, P. (2014). Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 53. Scholar
  53. Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(15), 1–19.Google Scholar
  54. Paul-Hus, A., Díaz-Faes, A. A., Sainte-Marie, M., Desrochers, N., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2017). Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0185578. Scholar
  55. Pontille, D. (2003). Authorship practices and institutional contexts in sociology: Elements for a comparison of the United States and France. Science, Technology and Human Values, 28(2), 217–243.Google Scholar
  56. Rahman, M. T., Regenstein, J. M., Kassim, N. L. A., & Haque, N. (2017). The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 275–281.Google Scholar
  57. Rajasekaran, S., Shan, R. L. P., & Finnoff, J. T. (2014). Honorary authorship: Frequency and associated factors in physical medicine and rehabilitation research articles. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95, 418–428.Google Scholar
  58. Reinisch, J. F., Li, W. Y., Yu, D. C., & Walker, J. W. (2013). Authorship conflicts: A study of awareness of authorship criteria among academic plastic surgeons. Plastic and Reconstructive Survey, 132(2), 303E–310E. Scholar
  59. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(1), 89–91. Scholar
  60. Resnik, D. B., & Master, Z. (2011). Authorship policies of bioethics journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 424–428. Scholar
  61. Resnik, D. B., Tyler, A. M., Black, J. R., & Kissling, G. (2016). Authorship policies of scientific journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(3), 199–202. Scholar
  62. Roberts, L. W. (2017). Addressing authorship issues prospectively: A heuristic approach. Academic Medicine, 92(2), 143–146.Google Scholar
  63. Samad, A., Khanzada, T. W., & Siddiqui, A. A. (2009). Do the instructions to authors of Pakistani medical journals convey adequate guidance for authorship criteria? Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(6), 879–882.Google Scholar
  64. Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700404.Google Scholar
  65. Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 438–442.Google Scholar
  66. Shaw, D. (2011). The ICMJE’s definition of authorship is illogical and unethical. British Medical Journal, 343, d7192. Scholar
  67. Smith, E., & Master, Z. (2017). Best practice to order authors in multi/interdisciplinary health sciences research publications. Accountability in Research, 24(4), 243–267.Google Scholar
  68. Sønderstrup-Andersen, E. M., & Sønderstrup-Andersen, H. H. K. (2008). An investigation into diabetes researcher’s perceptions of the Journal Impact Factor — reconsidering evaluating research. Scientometrics, 76(2), 391–406.Google Scholar
  69. Spiegel, D., & Keith-Speigel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credits: Ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 25(8), 738–747.Google Scholar
  70. Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1458–1465.Google Scholar
  71. Supak-Smolcic, V., Mlinaric, A., Antoncic, D., Horvat, M., Omazic, J., & Simundic, A. M. (2015). ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica. Biochemia Medica, 25(3), 324–334.Google Scholar
  72. Supak-Smolcic, V., & Simundic, A. M. (2015). Biochemia Medica’s editorial policy on authorship. Biochemia Medica, 25(3), 320–323.Google Scholar
  73. Tarnow, E. (1999). The authorship list in science: Junior physicists’ perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 73–88. Scholar
  74. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2016). How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers. Accountability in Research, 23(2), 97–122.Google Scholar
  75. Tripathi, M., Kumar, S., & Babbar, P. (2018). Bibliometrics of social science and humanities research in India. Current Science, 114(11), 2240–2247.Google Scholar
  76. The World Association of Medical Editors (2007). Authorship. Retrieved October 5, 2018 from
  77. Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3), 16.Google Scholar
  78. Warrender, J. M. (2015). A simple framework for evaluating authorial contributions for scientific publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1419–1430.Google Scholar
  79. Washburn, J. J. (2008). Encouraging research collaboration through ethical and fair authorship: A model policy. Ethics and Behavior, 18(1), 44–58.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  80. Weltzin, J. F., Belote, R. T., Williams, L. T., Keller, J. K., & Engel, E. C. (2006). Authorship in ecology: Attribution, accountability, and responsibility. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(8), 435–441.Google Scholar
  81. Winston, R. B., Jr. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63(8), 515–518.Google Scholar
  82. Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., & Fontafarosa, P. B. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 343, d6128.Google Scholar
  83. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Center for Research in Econometric Theory and ApplicationsNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations