Thank you for this question in which you have raised the issue that some journals limit the number of authors to be enlisted in the published article, especially in case reports.

The key questions that you have asked are about what your reader thinks about the editorial or publishing policy and if this policy is fair at all. Let me begin my views on the possible reasons of restricting the number of authors of a scientific publication or scholarly article by the publisher.

I think these reasons could be related or linked to the editorial status quo, tradition, or history of the journals or professional ethical practice. It could also be technical, administrative, or legal within the publishing agreement or regulations.

The question of the fairness of this policy does not arise, I think, because this is technically or professionally unethical, illegal, and flawed without any shadow of doubt. I said, the issue should not arise or occur because, it is a blatant or gross violation of intellectual property or rights of the excluded co-authors or co-writers let alone co-researchers or project partners who are also the co-authors.

It would look as if the practice would amount to plagiarism regarding the authors whose contribution ot inputs have not been acknowledged directly.I think this will also diminish the professional integrity or image of the editorial board of the journals in question.

At the same, the authors whose names have been left out will suffer a variety of consequences such as loss of career development promotion, job opportunities, funding for research grants, personal professional reputation, recognition, qualifications, or emotional stability in addition to self confidence.

The criteria for leaving names of some contributors are in themselves very problematic as unscientific methods are used in the selection process.This practice also causes a chilling effect on the potential authors or academics.It can demote the spirit of academic writing or publishing among many authors or potential writers.

Journal writers are not ghost publishers or writers that is why their own names must be included in their publications, regardless of the percentage of their contributions to the article tat is to be published.

Best regards

Wilson

I have heard of scientific articles, such as about the results of space probes, that list hundreds if not thousands of authors, because they want to recognize everyone who played a role in designing, executing, and analyzing the mission. This could end up being an unreasonable number of pages in a printed journal.

I think that the authors should be those who actually WROTE parts of the paper, as submitted.

I disagree with Wilson. The issue is how many people it takes to compile the data for and write a case report. Many journals have criteria for the contributions required to be an author. They extend beyond reading & commenting on a draft. A typical case report includes perhaps 1 to 7 cases. At most, the authors might be an attending doc for each (and that's an iffy inclusion), one or two people to compile the cases, one or two more to lead the writing. So if the limit is 10 or 12 co-authors, that's reasonable. The limit reduces the chance that authors were added as a courtesy (department chair, funder, my child in grad school, sleep with me and ..., every undergraduate paid to search manual records for cases, the editor who formatted the references) or simply for a fee (a rash of that documented from China at one point). Journals are struggling to deal with assuring authors are legitimate. if you had a really large case series, you could either appeal to the editor for an exemption (demonstrating why you had so many legitimate co-authors) or choose a journal without a limit.

Thank you all for your opinions

Short answer is 'Yes, it is'. As Ted says : one could either appeal to the editor for an exemption or choose a journal without a limit.