Behind the byline - identifying and addressing authorship changes

How to handle authorship change requests

In the realm of academic publishing, "authorship" is a two-way street. On the one hand, it is a way of acknowledging due credit for those individuals who have significantly contributed to a research study or publication; on the other it’s a means of publicly accepting responsibility for said work. Ensuring accurate authorship attribution is essential for upholding transparency and accountability in research publications, as outlined on our author policies and guidelines abre em uma nova guia/janela page.

Authorship changes, as well as alterations in authorship contributions, may occur during the revision process, especially if additional experimentation or significant analyses are required, and may involve adding co-authors or revising authorship contributions (that is which role(s) have been played by which author(s)). Requests to change authorship should be submitted by the corresponding author, who must provide the reason for the request to the journal editor with written confirmation from all authors (including any authors being added or removed) that they agree with the addition, removal, or rearrangement. Authors are now required to use the Authorship Change Request Form (linked in Editorial Manager and most journals’ guide for authors) and upload the completed form into Editorial Manager for editor consideration.

While these change requests may be defensible, they should always be meticulously reviewed and validated before being accepted, and – if explanations fall short – appropriate action should be taken. This article aims to highlight the tools and services available to help you identify and assess such changes and provides guidance on how to respond.

Detecting authorship changes

Editorial Manager (EM) checks and identifies authorship changes such as additions, removals or changes in order, at multiple points within the editorial process. Clicking on the “Author Status” link within the manuscript details screen will allow you to identify which modifications have been made.

Changes in authorship contributions

Encouraging transparency regarding author contributions is highly recommended, often by means of a CRediT author statement. abre em uma nova guia/janela Many of our journals now feature an EM-integrated version of a CRediT-based tool. Note that contributors who do not meet Elsevier’s criteria for authorship should be recognized in the acknowledgements section; you will find more information on the on the authorship of the paper section on our duties of authors information abre em uma nova guia/janela.

Responding to authorship changes

The “changes to authorship” section in your journal’s guide for authors mandates that any alterations to the author list should be made before manuscript acceptance and with approval from the journal editor. Any authorship change requests post-publication should be escalated to your publishing contact for further guidance. To request a change, corresponding authors must provide both the reason for the alteration and written confirmation from all authors agreeing to the change. If this information is absent, editors may choose to withhold submission processing or contact the corresponding author for clarification.

As mentioned above, authors are now required to use the Authorship Change Request form and upload the completed form into Editorial Manager for journal editor consideration. All authorship changes should be closely evaluated to determine if they meet Elsevier’s criteria for authorship and reviewed for plausibility; see tips from our Ethics Experts below. When an authorship change is requested prior to publication, it is critical that the manuscript be placed on hold within Editorial Manager until the investigation is complete and an editorial decision has been issued.

Should you observe multiple, unjustified author additions and/or removals on a single paper – especially between revisions and/or acceptance and proof corrections – we recommend that you reject the manuscript, look for other signs of systematic manipulation, and escalate to your publishing contact for further investigation of potential authorship for sale. For more insight, refer to the Editors’ Update series “Paper mills: see the wood for the trees abre em uma nova guia/janela”.

A collaborative effort

Through these tools and services, we aim to assist you in identifying and responding to authorship and authorship contribution changes, aligning with our commitment to uphold the integrity of the research we publish and foster trust in science. Rest assured however that this responsibility does not solely rest on your shoulders. For example, we have started deploying new, in-house developed technologies that can proactively identify potential ethical misconduct early in the submission process. This technology will enable our internal staff to promptly investigate and act upon such cases. Your publishing contact will inform you when your journal will be rolling out this new tool and provide you with further details.

This article is part of a series on ethical misconduct in scholarly publishing. Stay informed by reading our recent Editors’ Updates on “Top tips on identifying citation misconduct abre em uma nova guia/janela” and “Announcing the new ‘Evaluate Manuscript abre em uma nova guia/janela’” and be on the lookout for more insightful content coming your way!

Elsevier’s Ethics Expert, Andrew Gardyne, recommends you consider the following questions when validating the justification provided for authorship related changes:

1. Did you receive independent, written confirmation from all authors via the authorship change request form, including any added or removed authors? Has sufficient detail been provided about why the changes have occurred (e.g., not just restating CRediT contributions or ICMJE principles)?

2. Do you need to further query any authors removed from the authorship list, especially for late-stage removals, to verify if there are concerns about the scientific validity of the content in its current form?

3. How extensive were the revisions requested by the reviewers, and do they therefore justify the inclusion of additional author(s)?

4. Do you have confidence that the additional author(s) have the expertise and access to the appropriate resources to carry out the additional work (e.g., publication history, equipment, etc.) or do you need to obtain further validation from the institute?

5. Are the added authors from the same institution and/or country as the original authors or do you need to ask for further evidence of the collaboration (i.e., is the relationship plausible)?