Dear Nancy, Authorship begins when you make an intellectual contribution. The test-tube shaker and the librarian are not authors. However, if one of these people perceives a pattern which then gets featured in the paper, then this must be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements. If one of them writes even a key sentence or a paragraph of the paper they must automatically become co-authors.

In practice, research feeds the writing and the writing feeds the research. They are not sequential events.

For more detail, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship

Ian Kennedy

Thank you for your answer to my question, which is my attempt to understand the differences between authorship in the sciences, where multiple authorships of 2 up to hundreds is the norm, and the humanities, where 1 author is the norm. I looked at the link you provide, which also uses the term "contributor," which reminds me that I have often puzzled over the question of why, at least in the humanities, authorship is credited to the editor of a book of articles or essays or chapters written by and the contributed for publication in the book.

Now, as I re-read your own answer, you may be helping to explain to me an unpleasant experience I had as a contributor to two different books, one in England by an independent scholarly press (Cambridge Scholars), the other by a prestigious university press (Northwestern). Somebody changed the final sentence in my essay and even made a grammatical mistake in the first case, and, in the second case, somebody removed my first sentence, which contained the name of a Christian poet, and mentioned, in their write-in first sentence, the name of a non-Christian novelist. I have mostly gotten over it; certainly, I was very pleased that my work was selected in a competition field for publication. Perhaps the editors who changed my book articles believed that they had to write at least one sentence into my article because they knew what you know, i.e., that anyone who adds one sentence to an article should be considered a co-author! I have mentioned these two cases before on Research Gate, and the respondents shared my opinion that nobody ought to have subtracted and added like that.

Now, I am considering the possibility of serving as a guest editor for a volume of essays either in science or humanities. My impression is that it is an honorary appointment, which is very nice, because the flow chart places the publisher in a role very similar to that of an academic journal. My role is to disseminate the call for papers in my professional networks, to read the articles approved by the publisher's specialist readers and editorial board, and to write a foreword. In this case, it sounds to me like the publisher and its referees or peer reviewers or specialists on its editorial board will be the "author." I suppose that is why publication in academic journals is universally considered ideal, whether in science or humanities, because contributors of articles retain their authorship without reference to any [book] editor. And the journal is the official specialized publication for the association of academicians, not beholden to a publishing house or named press.

An editor of one sentence does not become a co-author.

You'll find interesting stuff if you Google “cambridge scholars publishing predatory”.

How much are they going to pay you as "honorary guest editor"?

Ian Kennedy

I understood you to say that a writer of one sentence becomes a co-author. As I said, two full professors, one a social scientist, the other in American studies, are the Editor for (1) _Inhabited by Stories: Critical Essays on Tales Retold (Cambridge Scholars, 2012); and (2) _Zora Neale Hurston, Haiti, and _Their Eyes Were Watching God_ (Northwestern University Press, 2013), removed the (1) last sentence I had written; and (2) the first sentence I had written, which they replaced by writing their own sentences. There is a possibility that one of the three anonymous blind review specialist readers at Northwestern University Press added the sentence in (2) at the last minute.

I googled "cambridge scholars publishing predatory" and I agree with the professor at a prestigious California university in his 2019 advisory that his experience with Cambridge Scholars is not predatory, and further, that they publish their books in a timely manner, charge their authors nothing, and "offer royalties from 1 copy onwards" (distinguished research professor Allen J. Scott, UCLA). But here again I see why (1) felt compelled to write-in a sentence of their own authorship at the end of my critical essay, moreover why they broke with the current convention of having the names and essay titles of their contributors listed in a Table of Contents on websites, including OCLC/World Catalog, because they wanted to make sure of their claim to 100% of royalty payments, which usually never go to contributors anyway. As you may know, the vast majority of academic article authors never expect, nor do they receive, monetary remuneration. My experience is that USA scholarly and academic publishers have always sent to me a complimentary copy of the published book by media mail. The co-editors of (1) emailed contributors a pdf file of their anthology of critical essays. I was delighted to receive my complimentary book from (2) Northwestern University Press.

I am not officially a Guest Editor yet. Cambridge Scholars invited me on the basis of my book articles they published in (1) above, and, in addition, my book article "Water Symbolism in George Sand's _Histoire de ma vie_ and _Marianne_: Catholic Narratology of Atonement" in _Water Imagery in George Sand's Work_ (Cambridge Scholars, 2018). As a contributor I was offered a discounted price to buy the CS books, but I encountered several snags because of the international monetary system (exchange rate glitches) and also I never do transactions involving money on the Internet mainly because I have never had or used credit cards. CS has invited a number of their authors and contributors with similar offers, they noted.

Apparently, CS will issue the Call-for-Papers. Yesterday, I posted a Question on Research Gate in a "fishing expedition" to "test the waters" to see if there might be a "pool" of scientists who are interested in formalizing any of the hotly debated issues on Research Gate and beyond. I have incorporated my research on Newton, Einstein, Gregor Mendel (medical genetics), and fusion technology in my book on William Butler Yeats and several of my book articles. University contacts of mine recommended that I join Research Gate, which, they said needs more people (A) who write edited English; (B) who have a good deal of academic research published and significant teaching experience; and (C) are women.

We have a convention in the sciences that any co-author must be able to support the majority of the paper.

Stay away from Cambridge Scholars. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/96993/is-cambridge-scholars-a-fake-publisher?

Ian Kennedy

Thank you very much for your answers to my authorship questions. I try to be open-minded about these matters. Right now, I know more about Cambridge Scholars than I do about Woolf University, which, I have the impression, does not offer courses in humanities, but, rather, specializes in engineering. It appears to be located at a frontier in the academic world in offering the majority of its courses in online formats? There is thus an essential difference between Cambridge Scholars and Woolf, which, correct me if I err, is an affiliate of Oxford?

If I am correct, then Cambridge and Oxford may be competitors, for one thing. On the other hand, if you, as a scientist with vested interests in e-technologies, then your advisory to "Stay away from Cambridge Scholars" is relevant to my current concerns. Now I will know, if nobody at Research Gate wants to participate in a project that may lead to being published in a Cambridge Scholars book (hard cover and e-book), at least one reason why: At best, Cambridge Scholars is a controversial publishing firm. Moreover, your observation that a co-author has to be able to support the majority of the paper is very well taken by me, and I appreciate this stipulation. With regard to my possible future interaction with Cambridge Scholars, I am sure that the editor who emailed me expected me to respond by (1) accepting or declining the invitation; and (2) suggesting an "area" in humanities because my two book articles they published are in humanities. However, she did not know that both the University of Oklahoma and the University of Washington have recommended me to incorporate sciences into my research and writing in humanities and social sciences.

To clarify: the invitation extended to me has no connection whatsoever to "work made for hire," which is probably a commonplace feature in many, maybe even most, projects in the sciences and technology. In America, as funding has shifted in academic departments away from arts and sciences and toward social sciences, the traditionally close connections between science/technology have enabled those fields to recover in a more sustainable way. The humanities are all around us; paradoxically, the visibility of art, music, and my field of literature is often minimal in the secularized, materialist, and necessarily utilitarian world today. I am an advocate of utilitarianism because I profess that, ultimately, the humanities is the backbone and foundation and that everything else begins in, and will end in, humanities.

If I become a Guest Editor at Cambridge Scholars, my work will be conducted in the letter and spirit of academic scholarship, _pro bono_, for the common good of all. If you happen to be on top of a controversial topic in your area of expertise, I would be happy to receive your Answer to my recent Question as listed on my ResearchGate Profile! Or perhaps you know of a colleague or an advanced honors student who might be interested. It may be helpful for you to know that I will not be the arbiter of which proposals and / or papers will be selected. Cambridge Scholars has, during the past several years, been building, and continues to build, an editorial board of active researchers and writers primarily in the sciences, as you may already know.

I believe every co-author of any science publication must be able to defend the work done in the research. In some research collaborations, you have some collaborators that focus on the implementation, some focus on explaining the facts of the research, some come up with the research idea while others may possess mentorship roles. I believe all the above designations should be acknowledged in the publication.

Oluwatobi Akanbi ,

Thank you for your answer, which articulates rather nicely some examples of specific roles that are included in the conventional 'division of labor' in industry and traditional 'team work' in business. Best regards.

Authourship is based on contribution on the work.

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Obeagu ,

I thank you very much for your reply on this discussion thread.

Your answer suggests that the substantive content is the basis for defining the concept of authorship, which is not necessarily defined by the actual writing.

Best wishes.