Authorship attribution - Vancouver guidelines

The Vancouver recommendations, first established in 1978 and since updated regularly, are a series of recommendations surrounding ethical conduct in connection with publication of research results. One of the most important subjects addressed by the recommendations is the attribution of authorship for scientific papers, for which the document states a set of guidelines. The guidelines are produced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but are used across scientific disciplines as a way of establishing consensus and align expectations with regard to the attribution of authorship. Disagreement on authorship is one of the most common areas of conflict between researchers and it is therefore important to have a common understanding of what qualifies a contributor for authorship. At DTU, researchers are expected to adhere to the Vancouver guidelines when attributing authorship.

Who is an author?

The Vancouver guidelines recommend that the following criteria are all fulfilled in order to qualify for authorship.

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

• Final approval of the version to be published; AND

• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Accordingly, the Vancouver guidelines recommend that contributors, who fulfil fewer than all four of these criteria, should not be included in the author list, but rather these individuals should be acknowledged in the acknowledgement section of the paper. It is important to note, that contributors who fulfil the first criteria should not be denied the opportunity to fulfil the other three as a means of denying them authorship.

The Danish code of conduct offers a modification to the last criterion of the Vancouver guidelines, adding that author responsibility for the content of an article should be assessed based on factors like expert level, seniority and other factors, which may be relevant to their ability to critically assess the paper’s content.

Departures from the Vancouver guidelines

It is important to note that certain fields of scientific research may depart from the Vancouver guidelines in their author attribution practices, due to specific factors or conventions in that field. Such departures are acceptable, so long as the alternative rules surrounding attribution of authorship are clearly set out from the beginning of the project. Examples of such departures can be found in research conducted in consortia with many contributors, where it is logistically impossible for all contributors to review the paper, and where this role may be delegated to committees.

AI and authorship

Following the general principles for responsible AI-assisted research, the Vancouver guidelines have been updated to accommodate the widely used AI-assisted technologies. The Vancouver guidelines state:

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section. If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods.

Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship. Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

It is always recommended to check the journal requirements regarding use of generative AI, before submitting your paper.

Guest and ghost Authors

The criteria of the Vancouver guidelines were formulated in part to combat the issue of guest and ghost authorships. A guest author is someone who is included in the author list, but who did not make an actual contribution to the paper in question. Guest authors are often included because their name is considered to lend credibility to a paper or as a courtesy to a colleague who may be loosely affiliated with a project.

A ghost author is in some ways the opposite of a guest author. This is often a person, who wants to conceal their involvement in the paper, because this may decrease credibility of its results or conclusions. This could be someone employed at a pharmaceutical company, who estimates that the paper may be better received if their name is replaced with that of a person at e.g. a public university, even though this latter person did not contribute to the research. These practices are considered unethical, because they reduce the clarity regarding who was truly involved in the research and whether those individuals are subject to conflict of interest.