vestigators should review each proposed manuscript with these principles in mind. (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1990)

  1. In a publication, all data pertinent to the project should be reported, whether supportive or unsupportive of the thesis or conclusions. Except for review articles, publishing the same material in more than one paper should be avoided. Unnecessary fragmentation of a complete body of work into separate publications should be avoided. Prior work in the field should be referenced appropriately. (University of Michigan Medical School, 1989)

  1. Authorship. Authorship and allocation of credit are primary benchmarks of achievement and rewards for scientists.

    1. Subjects to be addressed:

      • Criteria for authorship and identification of contributors

      • Order of listing of authors

      • Responsibility for authorship: collective and individual

    2. Examples of good practice:

      1. For each individual the privilege of authorship should be based on a significant contribution to the conceptualization, design, execution, and/or interpretation of the research study, as well as a willingness to take responsibility for the defense of the study should the need arise. In contrast, other individuals who participate in part of a study may more appropriately be acknowledged as having contributed certain advice, reagents, analyses, patient material, support, and so on, but not be listed as authors. It is expected that such distinctions will be increasingly important in the future and should be explicitly considered more frequently now. (NIH, 1990)

      2. Criteria for authorship of a manuscript should be determined and announced by each department or research unit. The [Harvard University Faculty] committee considers the only reasonable criterion to be that the co-author has made a significant intellectual or practical contribution. The concept of “honorary authorship” is deplorable. The first author should assure the head of each research unit or department chairperson that s/he has reviewed all the primary data on which the report is based and provide a brief description of the role of each co-author. (Harvard University Faculty of Medicine, 1988)

  2. Peer review. Peer review is used to guide decisions on the funding of research and on the publication of research results. It is an essential component of the scientific research process.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement