Investigators face multiple pressures to publish and present their research findings. First, sharing knowledge gained in biomedical research is essential for promoting the advancement of science and for facilitating the transfer of research findings to processes/procedures that improve health. Second, academic promotions typically depend in part upon a successful record of publications, and this sometimes results in an inappropriate focus on the quantity instead of the quality of publications.

NIH expects PIs/grantee organizations of NIH-funded research to “make the results and accomplishments of their activities available to the research community and to the public at large” (NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Part II, Subpart A). NIH also expects grantee organizations to “safeguard appropriate authorship and ensure timely disclosure of their scientists’ research findings by such means as publications and presentations at scientific meetings.” When meeting these pressures and obligations to disseminate research findings, investigators must consider publication practices, authorship, and peer review.

Publication Practices

Significant resources are required for journals to maintain systems to review/publish scientific manuscripts and for scientists to read the literature and remain informed of the latest developments in their fields of studies. Therefore both these groups benefit from responsible publication practices that include: not submitting similar manuscripts to multiple journals; not publishing identical/similar data in multiple articles; not publishing fragmented data in order to increase the number of publications; not including preliminary data in publications; limiting references to/reliance on unpublished data in articles submitted for publication; and promptly making needed corrections or retractions of published data.

Authorship

Individuals included as authors on scientific publications should be limited to those who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research through the design, conduct, analysis and/or reporting of the research. There are other types of contributions that, while valuable, do not warrant authorship such as: the contribution of research materials, lab space or equipment; provision of patient care or samples; and proofreading or editing manuscripts. It is also not appropriate to have honorary/ghost authors who did not have a substantive role in the research, but might lend prestige or credibility to the work.

The lead author typically has overall responsibility for coordinating the development of the manuscript and ensuring its validity, but all authors should read and approve the final manuscript. The order of the authors should be mutually agreed upon by those involved in publishing the research, but common practices for determining the order include having: the individual making the largest intellectual contribution as the first author; the laboratory director as the last author; and additional authors listed in decreasing order of their relative contributions to the research.

In publishing textbooks, editors should be responsible for ensuring the quality of the information and appropriate attribution of contributors. Research sponsors and funding sources should also be acknowledged and clearly identified, and acknowledgements may be used to recognize minor contributions to the research that do not warrant authorship.