Thanks, Dr Rao, for the links. The two questions are related to mine, but they are far from the same.

My concern is not so much about the ordering of the authors. On that particular question I have always strongly advocated the strict alphabetical ordering, because I think any other system would need a clear definition of the criteria clearly spelt out IN THE PAPER in each individual case. (And no sane publisher would like such a silly text to be spelt out, and take away scarce space.) If there is a main author, let her/him be the corresponding author, and that's it - but keep the alphabetical ordering (because that is - in some sense - the only NON-ordering!).

If everyone is honest about who contributed what, perhaps there could to be a public logbook about that - if for funding/graduation purposes. I know that at my university, bachelor projects are done in groups of four. Each member is supposed to state an ambition regarding grades when the project starts, and each member writes a logbook about his/her own work. As far as I know every student has been honest, and there have been no heated debates among the students in a group. Such a system should not need to be made public with regards to scientific publishing, but it makes sense that the authors of a multi-authored paper agreed - at least afterwards - who gets public credit for what, in the cases where that is important. 

But the whole discussion about the ordering of authors of a paper and how to register who did what is not helping science - it is hampering it. I hope the community will collectively and individually stop this silly nonsense.

Check these interesting threads with several answers that possibly address the problem you raised.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_the_contribution_of_the_first_author_of_a_scientific_paper_should_be_evaluated_more_than_coauthors_contributions#view=55a0fb57614325d0d98b456d

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_reliable_way_for_researchers_to_achieve_a_great_number_of_citations_over_time#view=55a28fef5cd9e31c1c8b45cb

Thanks, Dr Rao, for the links. The two questions are related to mine, but they are far from the same.

My concern is not so much about the ordering of the authors. On that particular question I have always strongly advocated the strict alphabetical ordering, because I think any other system would need a clear definition of the criteria clearly spelt out IN THE PAPER in each individual case. (And no sane publisher would like such a silly text to be spelt out, and take away scarce space.) If there is a main author, let her/him be the corresponding author, and that's it - but keep the alphabetical ordering (because that is - in some sense - the only NON-ordering!).

If everyone is honest about who contributed what, perhaps there could to be a public logbook about that - if for funding/graduation purposes. I know that at my university, bachelor projects are done in groups of four. Each member is supposed to state an ambition regarding grades when the project starts, and each member writes a logbook about his/her own work. As far as I know every student has been honest, and there have been no heated debates among the students in a group. Such a system should not need to be made public with regards to scientific publishing, but it makes sense that the authors of a multi-authored paper agreed - at least afterwards - who gets public credit for what, in the cases where that is important. 

But the whole discussion about the ordering of authors of a paper and how to register who did what is not helping science - it is hampering it. I hope the community will collectively and individually stop this silly nonsense.

This very serious and important problem to be solved. What the Journals can do:

1. Once the paper is submitted, the author name, author order be locked --- not to be changed.

2. The journal must take the consent of every author and its order.

3. After completing this process, no change request be entertained.

4. If it happened, the be sent back -- showing the conflict of interest.

5. Etc. ... .

Solving the problem of unethical selection of authors looks hard - probably nearly impossible! I suppose there are already well defined criteria about the order of authorship on a paper, which, it appears, are not always faithfully/ethically followed - for a number of reasons. We like it or not, the order DOES matter when it comes to career advancement.  

 Some of us have been advised early to write alone, if possible, to avoid such problems.  And if necessary, collaborate with ethical co-authors.  I suppose we must trust certain persons especially the corresponding author who must be above board in ethics.

@Michael, can we expect the journal to sort out the mess that we find ourselves in when working with unethical colleagues or co-authors? I am thankful that on RG we get a good chance to interact with others, and we can roughly know when we meet ethical persons, even though we meet online.

I suppose every institution has some authorship policy prescribed in its ethical Code of Conduct. That is I guess NOT the problem. The problem is its faithful implementation. Who makes the implementation really faithfully happen? I suppose it has to be the "research leaders" and the "top management" of the institution.  

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Here are few quotations about "Plagiarism":

• “If you plagiarize others' techniques, you steal their emotions and tell your spectators a lie with your work. Works as such equal zero.”                                      ― Wu Guan-Zhong
• “Writers who copy or plagiarise others are dreaming in another man’s sleep.”       ― Fennel Hudson, A Meaningful Life - Fennel's Journal - No. 1
• “Plagiarism is the fear of a blank page.”                                                                       ― Mokokoma Mokhonoana
• “I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes.”                               ― Jimi Hendrix

More than one year ago, I raised a question about an ongoing game of dishonesty in published research. Some scholars have the opinion that we cannot repair the damage caused & some of them think that it is difficult to find a mechanism by which honesty could be regained. If we surrender to these views, then we are like those who look at a ship while it is sinking without giving any help. When research becomes a game for some devious persons & when the whole academic process proceeds under the auspices of evil persons, then this will hit you, me, our sons & daughters, the society, and humanity at large. The direction will be towards "fake" titles, "fake" science, and "fake" research. Many RG colleagues sent alarming messages about this crucial problem which has to be tackled by all means.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_academic_research_dishonesty_be_prevented_and_what_punishment_do_you_suggest_for_the_perpetrators

This question raises an important issue. Often we see a phenomenon of authorship of exchange: I put your name on one of my articles and you put my name on your article. So we double the impact factor and citations. Another phenomenon is to impose the name of an author on all the articles written in an institution with the aim to improve the career of a "predestined". I still have not experienced an effective system to combat this phenomenon despite nearly 40 years of fighting injustice.

The discussion written by Dr.Nizar is very interesting thanks doctor Nizar

Although we have discussed  issues of misconduct and loses of academic culture  of scientific  publication in different threads here at RG but this one is a little strange to me what it means to select authors to a would be published article. An article is produced by collaboration of individuals who communicated ideas and shared expertise or by an individual. The final preparation of the paper then is the writing of names of those who participated in the preparation and there is no reason to delete names or include a name of a non participating individual from nowhere.

If there is a journal which practices such activities intentionally then that will not be called a scientific journal and the authors are quasi business people not passionately  scientists and it is a good practice to bring such a journal to places such as RG and condemn the journal and abandon it and expose the people who do that act. It is when we act that what we can bring change on things we value most, in times of abuse and lose or morality.  

Dear Barbara and all, you mean that your paper on Google scholar (GS) had co-authors that should not be there, right?  Most unusual, do others have this problem with what you put on GS?  We upload our own conference papers, but articles are automatically entered by GS, right?  So it is likely your journal article.  Is this right, Barbara?

It is the criminal act which brings many damages to academic and publishing culture. Such cases should be reported and prosecuted without exceptions!

The examples of false authorship, plagiarism and fake authorship, changes in authorship... follow. 

http://publicationethics.org/search/site/false%20authorship

• Cross-checking and fact finding was much easier to undertake on the Web; the credentials of documents or author, can be checked literally in seconds.
• Unethical practices, like faking research and plagiarism, were thought to be more widespread, thriving in a crowded and competitive digital environment, which, however, is not as anonymous as researchers think.
• In terms of dissemination, it was universally agreed that there was much greater pressure to publish than before, and to publish more quickly. On the plus side, it was easier to publish. The technical processes involved in submission had changed for the better. The use of online editorial systems was welcome as it tends to be associated with a speedier peer review process. Additionally, there was the pressure (from administration and funders) to reach outside the academic domain to practitioners and the public.

http://ciber-research.eu/download/20140115-Trust_Final_Report.pdf

Dear Barbara and all,

That is very interesting case to know where dear Michael has asked. This is an academic crime and if this is proven by you here then that means this academic fraud is rampant everywhere which will bring a damaging effect to research and publications.

It is the authors responsibility to take care against such wrongful ownership. After a manuscript is accepted for publication, no author can be removed from or added to the author list nor can the order of the authors be changed without the written permission of all of the authors and approval by the editorial office.

https://www.editorialmanager.com/jtcvs/account/info%20for%20authors%20online%20version.pdf

Thanks, everyone, for insightful comments. Those of us who know journal editors should discuss with them how a transparent system of defining "true" authors of a manuscript can be implemented - without too much work - so that the situation will improve.

These deals come in many names including coercive, honorary, guest, gift, ghost, and duplicated authorship.

If willing to do so, experienced group leaders can easily take advantage of inexperienced scientists, and authorship credit will always flow up the rank ladder. The “Matthew Effect” in science describes how senior scientists can easily benefit through credit that belongs to junior co-authors.

This places junior scientists in difficult positions to argue against any unfair authorship deals. Group leaders may just quietly accept, or even enforce, unfair authorship deals to further build their credentials, and retain leadership status.

Minimising unethical authorship deals is challenging when academics may be unacquainted with formal authorship criteria.

http://theconversation.com/tackling-unethical-authorship-deals-on-scientific-publications-36294

Dear Roland,

For avoiding unethical authorship, the original author has to take hard step for not adding as author.

But most experienced academics also have an authorship war story to tell. It might concern the head of department who insists on being named on every paper that comes out of their fiefdom, despite having had no input into most of them. It might concern the colleague who masterminded an entire research project but got no publication credit since they moved to another institution before it was completed. Or it might concern the PI of a collaborating lab, who used their greater seniority to make themselves the senior author on the paper, despite most of the project direction having been carried out by the more junior PI.

The reason all this matters so much, of course, is that journal articles are the currency of academic life, buying promotions, research grants and any number of scholarly accolades, such as plenary speaker invites and membership of prestigious societies. Moreover, in many disciplines, including most of the sciences, collaboration, at least within labs, is almost universal, meaning that papers almost always have more than one author. And, in terms of assigning individual credit, authorship order is often crucial – with the first (lead researcher) and last (senior author) positions being the greatest prizes...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/authorship-wars-academics-outline-rules-recognition

Brenda: while I would have liked it to not be necessary, perhaps that it a necessary step to take. But there is no way that the editors can check that the contributions among the authors are sincerely stated - they can still cheat!