Authorship is meant to reflect who contributed to the research and who takes responsibility for it. Terms like ghost authorship, gift authorship, and guest authorship are used to describe different kinds of gaps between contribution and credit.
For peer reviewers, authorship is not something that can be confirmed directly. What is available is the manuscript itself, along with contributor statements, acknowledgments, and disclosures. These elements can offer context, even if they do not provide a complete picture. This post focuses on what these authorship patterns mean and what a reviewer can reasonably look at during evaluation.
Understanding the terms
Ghost authorship occurs when someone who made a substantial intellectual contribution to a paper is not named as an author. This takes two distinct forms with different ethical weights:
- A professional writer or analyst who drafted or substantially shaped the manuscript is not listed as an author, typically because the commissioning organization prefers not to disclose this involvement.
- A junior researcher who conducted the actual experimental or analytical work has their contribution suppressed in favor of more senior names who may have had a supervisory rather than an intellectual role.
Gift authorship occurs when someone is named as an author despite having made no meaningful intellectual contribution to the work. This is typically offered as a courtesy to a senior colleague, a department head, or a funding agency representative whose goodwill is considered valuable.
Guest authorship is a related but slightly distinct term. It refers to the addition of a high-profile name to an author’s list, with or without their knowledge, to improve the paper’s chances of acceptance. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowchart on ghost, guest, and gift authorship presents these as a group of related issues with shared underlying factors and similar implications.
What reviewers have access to
Reviewers work with what is submitted to the journal. This usually includes:
- The manuscript content
- Author names and affiliations (depending on the type of blinding)
- Contributor role statements, when provided
- Acknowledgments
- Funding and conflict of interest disclosures
Reviewers do not have access to how the manuscript was developed over time or how authorship decisions were made within the research group. Because of this, any observation about authorship is based on what is visible in the submission.
Reading contributor information closely
Many journals now include structured contributor role statements, often based on the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework. These statements describe who was involved in different parts of the work, such as conceptualization, data curation, writing, and review.
When reading these, it can be useful to look at how roles are distributed across authors. For example:
- Whether writing responsibilities are clearly assigned
- Whether multiple authors are linked to core intellectual tasks
- Whether some roles are concentrated with a single individual
These observations do not lead to conclusions on their own, but they help build context.
Looking at the acknowledgments
The acknowledgments section can provide additional details about contributions that are not reflected in the author list. Sometimes this section includes:
- Technical or analytical support
- Assistance with drafting or editing
- Input on specific parts of the work
If the descriptions in the acknowledgments involve activities such as drafting sections of the manuscript or carrying out analysis, it can be useful to read them alongside the contributor roles to understand how contributions are being presented.
Paying attention to the structure and writing
Manuscripts are often written by multiple contributors, so variation in style across sections is not unusual. At the same time, noticeable differences in tone, detail, or clarity between sections can prompt a closer read.
For example:
- One section may be highly detailed and structured, while another appears more general.
- Technical explanations may vary in depth across sections.
- The level of clarity may shift between introduction, methods, and discussion.
These patterns do not point to a specific explanation, but they can be part of how a reviewer engages more closely with the text.
Author list and scope of work
The size and composition of the author list can also be read in relation to the work described in the manuscript.
Some studies involve multiple types of expertise, such as experimental work, statistical analysis, and data management. When reading, it can help to consider:
- How the listed authors connect to the different parts of the work
- Whether the contributor roles reflect the range of activities described
- How acknowledgments complement the author list
This is not about judging the author list, but about understanding how contributions are presented. However, this kind of analysis is possible only if the author information is available to you.
How to respond as a peer reviewer
If something in the manuscript raises a question about authorship or contributions, it can be shared in confidential comments to the editor. It helps to keep the focus on what is visible in the submission. Pointing to a specific section, such as a contributor statement or acknowledgment, makes the observation clear and actionable.
For example, a reviewer might note how writing roles are described or how certain contributions appear in the acknowledgments. This gives the editor a starting point for any follow-up, if needed. Editors have access to submission records and communication with authors, so they can look into authorship questions more directly.
Authorship concerns are rarely something reviewers can resolve from the manuscript alone. What they can do is read contributor statements, acknowledgments, and disclosures with care, and note any visible inconsistencies. A measured comment to the editor, grounded in the submitted material, is usually the most appropriate response. This keeps the review focused on evidence while allowing the journal to follow up through the proper editorial process.
If you want to approach peer review with more clarity and confidence, Join the ReviewerOne community.
Leave a Comment