The following types of contributions are not sufficient in themselves to justify authorship:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Example:
If group leaders or heads of institutes are named as co-applicants in the proposal for a research project but are not subsequently involved in carrying out the project and writing the manuscript, the contribution would usually not be sufficient to justify authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Case study:
A professor has acted as a co-applicant. Shortly after the project began, there was a rift and the professor left the institution. The other co-applicant and their group subsequently worked on the project for about five years, eventually publishing the article with the professor\u2019s name mentioned in the acknowledgements for raising third-party funding and providing some patient data. The professor wanted to be listed as the last author, as originally planned, but could not prove that he had participated in or even enquired about the project in the five years after leaving. In this case, simply mentioning the professor in the acknowledgements would be in line with good research practice.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Example:
When researchers want to apply new methods, they first have to undergo the necessary training. Simply reading a description of the method will not always be sufficient since this is often very brief. What is more, methods are often adapted to the conditions of the laboratory in question. For this reason, methodological instruction is usually provided by colleagues who have already used the method frequently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If methodological instruction is given (usually on a one-time basis) and the researcher then applies the method independently without the involvement of the person who provided the instruction, that person is not entitled to be named as an author.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Researchers who read through a draft manuscript and provide critical suggestions for improvement do not necessarily or automatically become co-authors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case of early career researchers, the question often arises as to whether a colleague, supervisor or group leader who has critically proofread and revised an article by an early career researcher should be listed as an author. An assessment must always be made on a case-by-case basis whether the contribution by the colleague, supervisor or group leader went beyond a one-time critical reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The answer to this question is once again closely linked to common practice within the discipline concerned. If a supervisor states that they should be listed as an author, for example, they should be asked to provide evidence of their contribution. It is also important to check whether the content of the article was changed substantially based on the critical comments.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
Example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This criterion for justifying authorship results from the fact that heads of institutes in some disciplines often state that they are responsible for all publications produced at \u201ctheir institution\u201d. For this reason, they wish to read and approve all manuscripts prior to submission \u2013 and be named as co-author. However, the rule that applies here once again is that a single reading does not establish authorship. If no genuine, verifiable academic contribution was made, that person cannot assume any responsibility for the specific content of the publication.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Examples of contributions that do not justify authorship.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","kommentar_cats":[258],"kommentar_tags":[177,236],"class_list":["post-5969","kommentare","type-kommentare","status-publish","hentry","kommentar_cats-practical-examples","kommentar_tags-authorship","kommentar_tags-publication"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n