Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionContact Us   |  Subscribe   |  Advertise   |  Login  Page layout
Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout
Lung India Official publication of Indian Chest Society  
  Users Online: 4520   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size

  Table of Contents    
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 232-233  

Gift authorship - A cause for concern

Department of Pediatrics, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai, India

Date of Web Publication19-Aug-2011

Correspondence Address:
Syed Ahmed Zaki
Department of Pediatrics, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-2113.83994

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Zaki SA. Gift authorship - A cause for concern. Lung India 2011;28:232-3

How to cite this URL:
Zaki SA. Gift authorship - A cause for concern. Lung India [serial online] 2011 [cited 2021 Jul 26];28:232-3. Available from: https://www.lungindia.com/text.asp?2011/28/3/232/83994


I would like to congratulate Sharma et al. for highlighting a very important issue regarding the ethics in medical writing. [1] I have the following comments to offer.

In academic settings, decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and salary are heavily influenced by the number of publications in peer reviewed journals. Professionals with strong publication records are often considered to have more competence and expertise than their less published counterparts. This culture of "Publish or Perish" is largely responsible for the practice of plagiarism and unethical medical writing. Another important issue in ethical medical writing is authorship criteria and order. Authorship criteria in medical writing are an important issue and should be emphasized to researchers and especially postgraduate students. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) offers specific and clear guidelines for authorship. These are commonly used by most scientific journals: "Authorship credit should be based on (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3". [2] All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgment section. The practice of giving gift authorship is widely prevalent in many institutions and has increased in recent years. Gift authorship is defined as co-authorship awarded to a person who has not contributed significantly to the study. There are several possible reasons for gift authorship. Junior researchers often feel pressured to accept or assign authorship to their senior co-workers who have substantial powers over their future career. In addition, junior researchers may believe that including more experienced colleagues as authors will increase their chances of publication. Senior investigators may give gift authorship for encouraging collaboration and maintaining good working relations or as repayment for favors. Regardless of the cause, gift authorship is an unacceptable practice for academic publications. Authorship should not be presumed as a right based on status or mere association with a research project without substantial contribution. There are three reasons why gift authorship is regarded as unethical. First, a publication that is not genuinely earned may falsely represent the individual's expertise. Second, due to gift authorship, the person is perceived as being more skilled than his colleague who has not published. This gives the person an unfair advantage professionally over his colleague while applying for jobs or appearing for an interview or for promotion. Finally, such an individual is perceived to have a false level of competence and will be expected to accomplish tasks that may be outside the range of his expertise. In conclusion, gift authorship should be strongly discouraged in medical writing. The authorship credit and order should be based on the relative scholarly abilities and professional contributions of the collaborators.

   References Top

1.Sharma BB, Singh V. Ethics in writing: Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific misconduct. Lung India 2011;28:148-50.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Available from: http://www.icmje.org. [Last Accessed on 2011 Apr, 30].  Back to cited text no. 2

This article has been cited by
1 A measure of ghostwriting phenomenon in China
Hu, Z. and Wu, Y.
Wuhan Daxue Xuebao (Xinxi Kexue Ban)/Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University. 2012; 37(SUPPL.1): 33-36
2 Let us all join hands in strengthening the publication process
Singh, V.
Lung India. 2011; 28(4): 237
3 Can his research become my publication
Singh, V.
Lung India. 2011; 28(3): 159-160


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded410    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal