Authorship Complaints

Authorship complaints typically involve disputes over the inclusion, exclusion, or order of authors listed on a manuscript. Proper authorship attribution is crucial for ensuring that all contributors to the research receive appropriate credit and that the integrity of the research record is maintained. Common issues include:

• Ghost Authorship: Excluding individuals who made significant contributions to the research.
• Gift Authorship: Including individuals who did not contribute significantly to the research.
• Order of Authors: Disagreements over the order in which authors are listed.

Principles of Authorship

To address authorship complaints effectively, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the principles of authorship. According to the guidelines of ISRR, authorship should be based on the following criteria:

1. Substantial Contributions: Authors should have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the research.
2. Drafting and Revising: Authors should have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Approval of the Final Version: Authors should approve the final version of the manuscript before submission.
4. Accountability: Authors should agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Handling Authorship Complaints

Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an authorship complaint, the editorial office will conduct an initial assessment to determine the nature and scope of the complaint. This assessment involves:

1. Reviewing the Complaint: Examining the details of the complaint to understand the specific authorship issue being raised.
2. Gathering Information: Collecting initial information from the complainant, including any supporting documents, communications, and evidence that highlight the authorship dispute.

The initial assessment helps to establish whether the complaint falls within the scope of publishing ethics and if it requires a formal investigation.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Throughout the process, confidentiality will be maintained to protect the identities of all parties involved. If the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, ISRR will respect this request while ensuring a fair and thorough investigation.

Notification and Response

If the initial assessment indicates that the authorship complaint warrants further investigation, the following steps will be taken:

1. Notification of Relevant Parties: The corresponding author of the publication in question will be informed about the complaint and requested to provide a response within a specified timeframe.
2. Communication with All Authors: All listed authors will be notified of the complaint and asked to provide their perspectives and any relevant documentation regarding their contributions to the manuscript.

The goal of this step is to gather comprehensive information from all parties involved to understand the contributions and circumstances surrounding the authorship dispute.

Formation of an Investigation Committee

To ensure an impartial and thorough investigation, a committee of experts with no conflicts of interest in the case will be formed. This committee will be responsible for reviewing all evidence and making a determination regarding the authorship complaint.

Evidence Collection

The investigation committee will gather all relevant documents, communications, and data related to the authorship complaint. This may involve:

1. Reviewing Manuscript Contributions: Examining the manuscript and any drafts to identify the contributions of each listed author.
2. Collecting Signed Statements: Requesting signed statements from all authors describing their contributions to the research. These statements should detail their involvement in the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, manuscript drafting, and revision processes.
3. Examining Correspondence: Reviewing email communications and other correspondence between authors to understand the decision-making process regarding authorship.
4. Assessing Documentation: Evaluating any additional documentation provided by the complainant or the authors that may shed light on the authorship dispute.

Decision-Making Process

The investigation committee will review all collected evidence and statements to determine the validity of the authorship complaint. The decision-making process includes:

1. Evaluation of Evidence: Assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented. This involves cross-referencing statements, examining manuscript drafts, and reviewing correspondence to verify contributions.
2. Consensus Building: Reaching a consensus on whether the authorship complaint is substantiated or unsubstantiated. The committee will consider the criteria for authorship and the documented contributions of each author.
3. Recommendation of Actions: Recommending appropriate actions based on the findings, which may include corrections to the authorship list, retractions, or other measures.

Communication of Findings

The findings of the investigation will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the complainant and the authors. This communication will include:

1. Summary of Findings: Providing a detailed summary of the investigation's findings and the rationale for the decision.
2. Recommended Actions: Describing any recommended actions and the steps that will be taken to implement them. This may include issuing corrections or retractions in the journal.
3. Appeal Process: Informing the parties about the process for appealing the decision, if applicable.

Implementation of Actions

The recommended actions will be implemented promptly to address the authorship complaint and prevent future occurrences. This may involve:

1. Corrections to Authorship List: Issuing a correction to the authorship list in the journal if changes are warranted. This ensures that all contributors receive appropriate credit for their work.
2. Retractions: Retracting the paper if the authorship dispute cannot be resolved and impacts the integrity of the research. This step is taken only in cases where the dispute significantly affects the validity of the research findings.
3. Policy Changes: Implementing changes to editorial policies or procedures to prevent similar issues in the future. This may include revising authorship guidelines or establishing clearer criteria for authorship attribution.
4. Disciplinary Actions: Taking disciplinary actions against individuals found to have engaged in misconduct related to authorship. This may include a ban on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.

Public Notification

In cases where the authorship dispute significantly affects the integrity of the research, a public notification may be issued. This notification will inform the academic community about the authorship dispute and the actions taken to address it. The notification will be published in an appropriate section of the journal to ensure transparency and accountability.

Institutional Notification

The institutions affiliated with the authors involved in the authorship dispute will be informed about the findings and actions taken. This step ensures that the institutions are aware of the authorship issue and can take appropriate measures to address it within their own policies and procedures.

Documentation and Reporting

All steps of the investigation process will be thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and accountability. This documentation includes:

1. Records of Communication: Keeping detailed records of all communications related to the authorship complaint. This includes emails, letters, and meeting notes.
2. Investigation Reports: Maintaining comprehensive reports of the investigation findings and decisions. These reports will be stored securely and may be referenced in future cases to ensure consistency in handling authorship complaints.
3. Annual Reporting: Including summaries of authorship complaints and their resolutions in annual reports to the journal's editorial board. This helps to monitor trends in authorship disputes and evaluate the effectiveness of the journal's policies and procedures.

Prevention and Education

To prevent authorship disputes and promote ethical authorship practices, ISRR will implement educational initiatives for authors, reviewers, and editors. These initiatives may include:

1. Authorship Workshops: Conducting workshops and seminars on ethical authorship practices and the criteria for authorship attribution. These workshops will provide guidance on how to determine authorship and avoid common disputes.
2. Guidelines and Resources: Providing clear guidelines and resources on authorship on the journal's website. This includes detailed explanations of the criteria for authorship and best practices for documenting contributions.
3. Communication Channels: Establishing clear communication channels for authors to discuss authorship issues and seek advice before submitting their manuscripts. This helps to resolve potential disputes early in the process.

Continuous Improvement

ISRR is committed to continuously improving its policies and procedures for handling authorship complaints. Regular reviews of the guidelines and feedback from the academic community will be used to refine and enhance the process. This ensures that the journal maintains the highest standards of integrity and transparency in authorship attribution.

By adhering to these detailed guidelines for handling authorship complaints, ISRR aims to uphold the integrity of the research and publication process, ensuring that all contributors receive appropriate credit for their work and that disputes are resolved fairly and transparently.