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.
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. In limited cases, however, you may notice signals within a manuscript that warrant clarification.
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.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria define authorship as requiring substantial contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the final version, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.
The Contributor Roles Taxonomy complements this by defining specific roles such as conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, and writing. Where visible, it helps reviewers and editors interpret how contributions are distributed.
What reviewers can and cannot see
Peer reviewers assess the manuscript as submitted, not the research process that produced it. They do not have visibility into internal discussions, contribution negotiations, or institutional dynamics that may influence authorship decisions.
Your role is limited to what the manuscript itself reveals, including whether authorship and contribution statements appear internally consistent with the work described.
Observable signals that might warrant a note
- The author list appears inconsistent with the work described.
- The contributor statement does not align with authorship criteria.
- Acknowledgments suggest substantial intellectual contributions.
- Authorship changes during review without clear explanation.
These should be treated as observations, not conclusions. If they are relevant, raise them carefully in confidential comments to the editor.
What is and isn't your responsibility
You are not expected to investigate authorship arrangements, resolve disputes, or determine who should receive credit. Editors also do not adjudicate authorship disputes from reviewer comments alone.
Your narrower role is to note a specific, plausible concern based on the manuscript. If no signal is visible, 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. The work described, the contributions listed, and the authors named should align in a transparent and credible way.
