Authorship Guidelines, Responsibilities, and Verification in Academic Writing

In the realm of academic writing, establishing clear authorship guidelines is crucial for accountability and transparency. Upon manuscript submission, authors affirm their individual contributions to the research, spanning all aspects. This includes confirming their involvement in the authorial team, approving the manuscript's content, and acknowledging the act of submission to the editor.

Authorship in a manuscript is reserved for those making a substantial contribution to the research, meeting at least three of the following criteria: conceptualizing and modeling the research, data gathering and analysis, drafting the manuscript, conducting a comprehensive literature review, statistically processing data, securing funding, providing administrative and technical support, or overseeing the experiment. Authors are encouraged to define their criteria for substantial research contribution, choosing at least one of the three required elements.

Individuals assisting in research and manuscript preparation, while not eligible for authorship, are recognized in the Acknowledgments section.

In manuscripts with multiple authors, a corresponding author is designated through internal consensus. This person acts as the primary contact with the editorial office, ensuring accuracy in all submitted information, validating co-authors' affiliations, and maintaining post-publication communication. Any changes to the authorial team must have unanimous approval from all co-authors, documented in the License Agreement. The editorial board refrains from mediating authorship disputes.

The corresponding author provides documents compliant with the editorial office's requisites. Editors may question the authenticity of the authorial group during manuscript processing.

Editorial doubts may arise, especially if:

  • The number of co-authors does not align with the manuscript's scope or significance.
  • Co-authors lack professional competence in the journal's field.
  • The literature analysis references a narrow range of individuals.

Reviewer concerns may arise if:

  • The corresponding author responds inadequately or delays responses to reviewer inquiries.
  • Convincing arguments regarding the scientific research are lacking.

Contributions from Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are insufficient for authorship. If an LLM is used, disclosure is necessary in the "Materials and Methods" section, supported by scientific rationale.

Editorial doubts trigger actions based on doubt extent and the corresponding author's response, following COPE recommendations. Alterations to authorial composition require compelling arguments, validated through an internal investigation by the editorial board, engaging with the affiliated institution or research location.