By and large, authorship should be determined on the basis of the level of participation and should not be influenced by whether the professional was paid or not. Authorship credit is based only on substantial contributions to conception, designing of works/experiments, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data and drafting/revising/editing for important intellectual to make the article publishable. The co-author would have to take responsibility and stand by the validity for his contribution. Merely editing or rewriting (paid or unpaid) of a paper doesn’t qualifies someone to get co-authorship.

Mr. Tripathi: One of the conditions of my question was that the editor did contribute references, content, contributed/modified graphics, and/or otherwise improved the validity of the document.  Often, there is not extensive data analysis because the article is qualitative and not quantitative in nature. Do you still feel that editors who improve the likelihood of publication and contribute in the ways mentioned above should not be credited with co-authorship?

@Beth Ann - As per norms established by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors 1997, 2001) and adopted by most of the reputed and high impact journals, Authors of a scientific work must have participated sufficiently in the work so as to take public responsibility for its content, and they must be willing and able to respond to questions about the work. Moreover, at a minimum an author should have made substantial contributions in conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. Please refer the attached document. Principles of Authorship is detailed on page 6 ...

Thank you. Very informative and consistent with my original:  "analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published". 

Why was the editor hired in the first place? I’d bet the editor was hired to improve the manuscript; that’s the job. Was an editor needed to edit or was an editor needed to be a coauthor?

If an editor is getting paid for editing and the editor’s contract does not include co-authorship why should the editor receive co-authorship?

@Jack.  If a person is asked to improve the document, aren't they doing more than editing?  They become, in fact, a co-author.  I agree that the area becomes less clear when the editor is being paid for editing.  But  I have seen editing that corrects a period and a comma and costs $200.  On the other hand, I have done editing that changed the text so vastly that the paper was able to be successfully published. I have agree to do this sometimes for co-authorship, sometimes for an hourly rate.  I believe that when you hire an editor, there is less obligation to include them as a co-author.  However, I do not think that you should exclude that option simply because there is payment.  Researchers get paid through grants.  Does that mean that they should not take credit for their work?  I am saying that if you have an editor that substantially improves your work, why wouldn't you pay them and consider a co-authorship in deference to their talents and/or input?

Beth Ann,

I think it depends on the degree of rewrite or modification and the arrangement between the "editor" and author(s). If a very substantial rewrite, then I would say that there needs to be at least acknowledgement of the person's valuable input, if not co-authorship.

When I edit other people's papers and reports, I highlight their text and then "suggest" changing, rewording, rearranging, or deleting it. If a statement needs a citation or more citations, then I note that, sometimes with recommended sources. The point is that I am not writing their paper or their report. I feel that by leaving their original work in and showing them where they went wrong or where they need to improve, it then is up to them to decide whether to make those changes or not. Other than suggesting a reworded sentence or two to replace awkward ones, this method allows them to still put everything in their own words, not mine.

In addition, I do know a couple of "professional editors": people who do nothing day in and day out but edit other people's writings. They, in most cases, do not know the subject matter of the paper/report. Many have only a strong language and grammar background, not a scientific, analytic, etc. background. Their "contribution" usually is related to sentence structure, verb usage, arrangement, flow, etc. Why would someone want to add them as a coauthor if they did not contribute to the body of work? Even if they are familiar with the topic, I think that it would be necessary for them to significantly influence the outcome of the paper/report to be named a co-author.

JAG

Hi Beth Ann,

There are many different kinds of editing; broadly speaking substantive editing, style editing, copy editing, technical editing, and acceptance editing.  You do not become a co-author just because you edit.  Because some authors prepare their manuscripts well, the manuscripts do not need much “editing.”  All-the-same, the editor had to spend time reading the manuscript and should be compensated for the same.

Before proceeding on a manuscript the editor should know what the-task-at-hand is; just what kind of editing is being sought.

Again broadly speaking, researchers propose or are solicited to perform certain tasks.  They are awarded grants, which are essentially contracts, or contracts to do specific work.  With grants, you are sort of promising to try to find something; you get paid even if you don’t. As-I-understand-it, the organization paying owns the product.  Researchers “usually” contract to perform certain tasks among which may be reporting on the research to the organization paying the freight.  Monies are usually aside in the contract for paying for the publication costs associated with the reporting of the research that has been done by the researcher.

An editor should know what the deal is before starting.  Don’t go into an editing job with unwritten- or unverbalized expectations leaving yourself in a position to be disappointed.

Best regards,

Jack

So Jack, in brief, you would answer my original question:

"If you edit and substantially rewrite a paper to make it publishable, including the addition of resources, should you get co-authorship even if you are paid for editing?"

only if this was mutually agreed upon prior to editing? 

Hi Beth Ann,

 Is the question:  If a person edits and substantially rewrites a paper to make it publishable, including the addition of resources, should the person get co-authorship even if the person is paid for editing?

“Should” here may mean there is an emotional, practical or other reason that co-authorship should be given.   

Suppose; an editor who signed on to essentially substantive edit-, style edit- copy edit, technical edit-, and acceptance-edit articles, and be responsible for their production with a publisher.  Should the publisher’s editor have his or her name on each article?  

For me, there are too many nuances to consider to answer the question, and have time for anything else (:-).  Life intervenes

The editor should not count on largesse, so to keep it simple let us go with co-authorship only if this was mutually agreed upon prior to editing.

Best regards,

Jack