Authorship is one of the most contested and ethically complex areas in scholarly publishing. Questions about who should be listed as an author, in what order, and on what basis are common within research groups and institutions, even if they do not always surface during journal submission. As a peer reviewer, you are rarely in a position to know whether an authorship dispute exists, and you are not expected to resolve one. However, in limited cases, you may notice signals within a manuscript that warrant clarification. This article outlines what those signals are, what reviewers can reasonably assess, and where that responsibility ends.
Why authorship matters
Authorship carries both credit and accountability. To be listed as an author is to claim intellectual contribution to the work and to accept responsibility for its integrity. These two elements are closely linked: if an individual is named as an author but did not contribute meaningfully to the work, this raises questions about how authorship has been assigned.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, widely adopted in the medical and life sciences and influential in other disciplines, define authorship as requiring all four of the following:
- Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation
- Participation in drafting or critically revising the manuscript
- Approval of the final version to be published
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work
Contributors who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.
The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) complements this by defining 14 specific contributor roles, such as conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, and writing. Where used, it provides a more granular account of who did what, helping editors; and, where visible, reviewers, interpret how contributions are distributed.
What reviewers can and cannot see
Peer reviewers are not well positioned to detect most authorship problems. You assess the manuscript as submitted, not the research process that produced it. You do not have visibility into internal discussions, contribution negotiations, or institutional dynamics that may influence authorship decisions.
As a result, most authorship disputes remain invisible at the review stage. Your role is limited to what the manuscript itself reveals. In some cases, this may include whether the authorship and contribution statements appear internally consistent with the work described.
Observable signals that might warrant a note
In limited cases, aspects of the manuscript may raise questions about how authorship has been assigned. These should be treated as observations, not conclusions.
The author list appears inconsistent with the work described: For example, a highly specialized study requiring multiple areas of expertise attributed to a very small or uniform author group, or an unusually large author list in a context where large collaborations would not typically be expected.
The contributor statement does not align with authorship criteria: If a contributor statement (for example, using CRediT) indicates that some named authors contributed only supervision or funding acquisition, without evidence of intellectual involvement, this may not meet ICMJE criteria on its own.
Acknowledgements suggest substantial intellectual contributions: If individuals acknowledged appear to have contributed to study design, analysis, or manuscript development, activities typically associated with authorship, it may be worth noting that the boundary between acknowledgement and authorship is unclear.
Authorship changes during review without clear explanation: Changes to the author list between submission and revision require formal justification and agreement from all authors. If such changes appear without explanation, this may warrant a confidential query to the editor.
What is and isn’t your responsibility
Your responsibility as a peer reviewer is limited but important. You are not expected to investigate authorship arrangements, resolve disputes, or determine who should receive credit. Editors also do not adjudicate authorship disputes.
Your role is narrower still: if something in the manuscript raises a specific, plausible concern about authorship, you may note it in a confidential comment to the editor. This should be framed as an observation based on the manuscript, not as a judgment. If no signal is visible in the manuscript, there is no expectation that you identify or infer a hidden dispute.
What good authorship practice looks like
A clear and consistent authorship and contribution statement provides a useful benchmark. Where contributor roles are specified, each named author should have made a substantive intellectual contribution consistent with authorship criteria. The overall distribution of contributions should align with the nature of the research. For example, studies combining experimental and computational work would typically involve contributors with relevant expertise in both areas. The goal is internal coherence: the work described, the contributions listed, and the authors named should align in a way that is transparent and credible.
If you want to approach peer review with more clarity and confidence, Join the ReviewerOne community.
Leave a Comment