As a researcher at the beginning of your professional journey, you will already know that understanding and upholding research integrity is essential to protect your work and reputation, as well as the integrity of the scientific literature as a whole. However, the research integrity landscape is vast and parts of it are constantly changing.

You may already have a firm understanding of the subject-specific integrity concerns that apply to your field but feel unsure about how to handle the challenges around fast-evolving topics such as predatory publishers, paper mills or ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI). Equally, tricky situations involving authorship disputes or conflicts of interest will always be difficult to manage the first time you encounter them, particularly if they involve established academics in your field.

Springer Nature offers resources to help early career researchers (ECRs) along their way, but before we get to those, try your hand at the following scenario: 

You are finalizing the manuscript for a research project that you completed in a small team at your institution. At the final stage, a senior researcher who has provided informal advice on the project but was not involved in the data collection, analysis or manuscript writing, asks to be listed as a co-author. They explain that due to their seniority and the quality of their advice, they warrant author credit, and besides, their name will make the manuscript seem more credible, benefiting everyone involved. You are not convinced that their contribution was substantial enough for them to claim authorship on the manuscript. How would you proceed? Select the correct answer.

A: Concede and give them author credit – their name does hold weight and may make the project look better, and pushing back may have consequences for you personally 
B: List them as a co-author to appease them, but clarify in the Acknowledgements that they do not qualify as a ‘full author’ as such 
C: Consult the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Authorship criteria and relay them to the senior researcher, politely pointing out that authorship requires significant contribution. Suggest that their contributions can be highlighted in the Acknowledgements instead 
D: Offer to suggest them as a reviewer – you can then add them to the author list in revision 
E: Tell the rest of the group that it is their choice and you don’t mind what they do, you just don’t want to be responsible either way 

[Image description: two people sit facing a third, who is facing away from the viewer. The two people in front of them appear displeased and questioning] 

The correct answer is C. 

The ICMJE’s criteria for authorship are the industry standards for determining which collaborators can claim author credit on a scientific manuscript. These criteria include: 

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; of the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 

• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND 

• Final approval of the version to be published; AND 

• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. 

In the scenario depicted above, the senior researcher does not meet these criteria. As such, the most appropriate response would be to inform the researcher of this in a professional manner and suggest that their valued advice can certainly be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section. 

As for the wrong answers: 

• Conceding to the researcher due to their seniority would damage the integrity of the manuscript. Similarly, including them as a co-author and then using another section of the manuscript to contradict the author list would detract from the manuscript’s integrity. The author list should only be populated with those who have made contributions that meet the criteria above. 

• It does happen that substantial contributions are made during peer review, and additions to the author list may be requested. However, the contributor is held to the same authorship standards. In this case, adding the contributor during revision would be a manipulation of the publication process. Additionally, suggesting the person as a reviewer would represent a conflict of interest as they had already advised on the manuscript. 

• Finally, as a co-author, you assume (shared) responsibility for the manuscript. As such, you are responsible for the integrity of the manuscript and cannot ‘wash your hands’ of this issue. 

There are several Springer Nature resources available for early career researchers to help handle research integrity concerns – read on to learn more. 

Springer Nature research integrity resources 

Introduction to Research Integrity : This course covers the basic principles of research integrity when planning, performing and analysing your research, covering topics across the field of research ethics. It also explores in detail research integrity best practice when it comes to writing and publishing a manuscript, including topics such as authorship, data integrity, plagiarism and more. 

Avoiding paper mills as an author : This course shows how paper mills deviate from the standard publishing process and manipulate it for profit, sometimes at the expense of duped researchers. It provides an outline of what paper mills are and the problems they create not only for individuals who use them and their reputation, but also for the scholarly record as a whole. It also provides guidance for spotting signs of a fraudulent paper mill offer and suggests alternatives for situations where the research has not gone as planned and researchers are not sure what their next steps towards publication might be.  

Predatory Publishers : This short course provides an overview of the phenomenon of predatory publishers, covering what they are and why they are a problem, how they operate, and how authors can protect themselves against exploitation. It includes an explanation of the publication process, and how to evaluate publications for legitimacy. 

Researcher Riddle series: The Research Integrity Group (RIG) Training team have a monthly campaign – that this post is part of! - that tests your knowledge of research integrity topics and shares useful resources. Have you tried the image manipulation riddle yet? It comes with a downloadable infographic on acceptable forms of image modification for researchers. 

All our courses are free, self-paced and available on the Springer Nature Author pages. We welcome any feedback, comments or questions at training@springernature.com.  

Take part in the Researcher Survey for a chance to help direct future development of research integrity resources for researchers, tailored to your needs. We will be creating more materials for researchers over the coming years, including guidance on hot topics such as the use of AI.

In the meantime, we invite you to check out resources such as the UK Research Integrity Office (RIO)’s “Embracing AI with integrity” guidelines for researchers. This practical guide covers responsible use of AI in manuscript writing, data analysis, and other parts of the research and publication process, as well as the key risks and ethical considerations to bear in mind when using AI in your research.