Authorship and Accountability: Why research leaders must rethink the rules of credit

By Dr.Vrushali Dandavate Dec 12, 2025

Dr.Vrushali Dandavate, "Authorship and Accountability: Why research leaders must rethink the rules of credit." Enago Academy. December 12, 2025. https://www.enago.com/academy/research-authorship-integrity-best-practices/.

Copy

In academic publishing, authorship is far more than a name on a paper, it is a statement of intellectual contribution, accountability, and ownership. For decades, the scholarly community has treated authorship order as a natural by-product of research collaboration. But in a world where interdisciplinary teams are the norm, data scientists work alongside clinicians, and AI is woven into research workflows, the old assumptions about authorship are no longer sufficient.

In academic publishing, the order of writers shows how much each person contributed to the work, who is responsible, and who owns it (COPE, 2023). As collaboration and interdisciplinary study grow, it’s important to make sure everyone knows what they’re responsible for and to avoid problems like self-plagiarism (ICMJE, 2024). The order in which authors are listed in a publication carries meaningful academic weight. It is not merely a formality but a reflection of contribution, responsibility, and recognition. Authorship today shapes careers, influences funding decisions, defines research impact, and, increasingly, reflects institutional and global expectations of transparency (Wiley, 2022). Authorship has become a central pillar of research integrity. Yet too many institutions still treat it as an afterthought.

As a community, we need to shift the conversation from “Who goes first?” to “How do we ensure authorship practices protect integrity, fairness, and trust?” That is the leadership gap the research ecosystem must address now.

The Evolving Weight of Authorship Order

Traditionally, authorship order has communicated both contribution and responsibility:

First authors lead the intellectual and practical work, designing the study, conducting analysis, and drafting the manuscript. Their position signals visibility and merit (Elsevier, 2024).
Middle authors contribute expertise, resources, analysis, laboratory work, or specialized support. Their position signifies meaningful participation, though not necessarily leadership.
Corresponding authors serve as custodians of the work, handling submission, communicating with reviewers, and ensuring the integrity of data and documentation. They often represent senior leadership in the project.

Authorship is, in many ways, the tangible output of a researcher’s credibility. Notably, certain disciplines, such as Mathematics and Economics, commonly list authors in alphabetical order, regardless of contribution level (Frandsen & Nicolaisen, 2020). The expansion of interdisciplinary and international research has introduced new tensions. Contribution-based authorship becomes challenging in projects with dozens or hundreds of contributors. This fragmentation raises an important question: In a global research ecosystem with inconsistent authorship norms, how do we protect fairness and accountability?

Authorship is a Leadership Decision Not a Negotiation Tactic

One of the most persistent problems in academia is that authorship decisions are often made too late, sometimes after the study is complete or even after the manuscript is drafted. By then, collaborators may have different memories, different expectations, and, unfortunately, competing agendas.

As a result, authorship disputes are among the most common complaints journals receive.

Thoughtful research leadership demands a different approach.

Authorship must be decided early, revisited regularly, and grounded in clear documentation. This is not administrative rigidity, it is a safeguard that prevents conflict, misinterpretation, and ethical breaches.

Researchers should align on:

Expected contributions
Levels of involvement in writing and data analysis
Who will manage revisions and correspondence
How changes in contribution will affect authorship order
What documentation will be kept

Setting these expectations from the outset creates transparency and reduces the likelihood of disputes later (COPE, 2023).

Several frameworks exist to support this, but the key is proactive adoption:

COPE provides transparent guidance on authorship documentation and dispute resolution.
ICMJE outlines consistent criteria for authorship especially in medicine and health sciences.
The CRediT taxonomy offers a modern, granular approach by categorizing contributions into roles like data curation, software development, writing, visualization, project administration, and more (CASRAI, 2024).

These guidelines are tools for research culture change. These standards help prevent unethical practices such as ghost authorship, honorary authorship, and authorship disputes (Elsevier, 2024).

The Overlooked Integrity Risk of Self-plagiarism

While plagiarism is widely discussed, self-plagiarism remains a murky ethical territory for many researchers. Self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse large portions of their previously published text, data, or figures without proper citation (APA, 2020). This can include:

Copying paragraphs or sentences verbatim
Reusing methods descriptions without acknowledgement
Replicating tables or figures
Republishing similar content with minimal changes

The argument often heard is, “But it’s my own work.” Yet from an integrity standpoint, it misleads readers and publishers about the novelty of the material. Journals expect original writing, not recycled content.

With advanced detection tools now capable of detecting text reuse with remarkable precision, the scholarly community has entered an era where unintentional self-plagiarism is far more visible (Wiley, 2022).

The goal is not to eliminate all reuse; some of it is inevitable and even acceptable. Methods sections, thesis-to-journal conversions, or reuse of necessary background can be allowed as long as they are properly cited, paraphrased, and contextualized (APA, 2020).

Responsible writing is a reflection of respect for the scholarly community and for one’s own professional reputation. Based on the COPE, 2023 guidelines, to avoid self-plagiarism authors can:

Citing previous work clearly and only when relevant
Paraphrasing and summarizing instead of copying text
Maintaining detailed records of past publications
Referring to prior research ideas without duplicating sentences

Where Research Integrity Needs Stronger Leadership

The future of scholarly publishing demands a rethinking of traditional norms. Authorship order, contribution documentation, and responsible citation practices must be viewed as integral components of research leadership. Leaders who foster clear authorship agreements help create environments where collaboration flourishes, contributions are respected, and the integrity of the scholarly record remains intact.

When authorship is handled thoughtfully and transparently:

Teams work more confidently
Contributions receive fair recognition
Disputes are minimized
Institutions strengthen their integrity culture
Research outputs gain greater trust

This is the research culture we should aspire to.

Authorship order, contribution transparency, and responsible citation are the core elements of ethical research. As collaborative science becomes more complex, the responsibility lies with senior researchers to set expectations early, document contributions rigorously, and model ethical writing practices. The future of research integrity will defined by the behaviors and decisions of those who lead research today and by rules and frameworks set up by the community as whole.

Sources & Further Reading