Authorship used to feel straightforward: contribute meaningfully, get listed. Yet in many research groups, the author list has started to resemble a seating chart at a very crowded dinner party; full, political, and occasionally bewildering. When everyone gets a seat at the table, the meaning of authorship begins to blur. This month’s Researcher Riddle dives into the subtle pressures behind authorship inflation, why it matters for research integrity, and how researchers can navigate tricky situations without losing their footing. 

Authorship is complex because it sits at the intersection of contribution, recognition, and career survival. In a publish-or-perish environment, authorship becomes a form of currency. A marker of productivity, prestige, and professional momentum. That pressure can tempt people to seek inclusion even when their contributions don’t meet formal criteria. This leads us to the phenomenon of authorship inflation.  

This phenomenon often emerges from two familiar culprits: honorary/gift authorship and ghost authorship. Honorary authorship happens when someone is listed as an author despite not meeting established criteria; perhaps a colleague included “for team harmony,” or a department head added “because they secured the funding.” Ghost authorship, on the other hand, hides contributors who did meet criteria but are omitted due to politics, hierarchy, or disputes. Both distort the scholarly record, misrepresent contributions, and can undermine trust in the research process. 

Unfortunately, like most things in life, it is easier said than done. To help, we have curated a list of resources to assist you through these awkward conversations and hold your ground with the reassurance of policy backing you up. But first, test yourself with the following scenario: 

You’re finalising a manuscript with a small team. Everyone has contributed meaningfully, and you thought the author list was clear and established, until the following occur. Which of these are acceptable reasons for inclusion as authors? 

A: The Primary Investigator wants to be included “for oversight.” 
B: A colleague from another lab asks to be included because they “helped you think through the idea months ago.” 
C: The PhD student who did substantial work asks why they aren’t included. 
D: The researcher who provided the dataset wants to be listed. 
E: The junior researcher who did the data cleaning wants to be included. 

[image description: a hot air balloon being inflated] 

The correct answers are C and D! 

The PhD student should be included as they contributed substantially to the research. If they helped design the study, conducted analyses, interpreted results, and contributed to drafting or revising the manuscript, they meet standard authorship criteria. Excluding them would risk ghost authorship, which misrepresents the true intellectual labour behind the work. 

Additionally, if the dataset provider contributed in a way that meets authorship criteria, they should also be included. Providing a dataset alone is not enough, but if they were involved in study design, interpretation, or manuscript development, authorship is appropriate. If they only supplied the dataset, they should be acknowledged, not listed as an author.  

Now let's evaluate the other options, and why they should not be included on the authorship list.  

• A: Seniority or “oversight” alone does not justify authorship. This is classic honorary authorship, which inflates the author list and undermines integrity. We understand that communicating with a senior colleague feels tricky, you might even feel like your future as a researcher is in their hands. However, if you take a deep breath and refer to the clear authorship criteria and related policies to justify your stance, you may be able to prevail as they will then be aware they are requesting a breach of policy.  

• B: Inspiration is valuable, but unless the colleague contributed substantially to the conception, design, analysis, or writing, they do not meet authorship criteria. 

• E: Data cleaning is important, but unless the junior researcher contributed to analysis or interpretation, they should be acknowledged rather than listed as an author. 

If you’d like to explore authorship criteria, responsible collaboration, and how to navigate tricky team dynamics, our Introduction to Research Integrity course is a great place to start. You can dive deeper into our Authorship Changes course (targeted at Editors but free to take for everyone) or explore the COPE case studies. Additionally, it is always good practice to check the policy of the specific journal if you are planning to submit a manuscript. Clear authorship practices don’t just protect the scholarly record but also you as a researcher, by making sure your work is not diluted in a sea of authors.