1. Contribution in research should be the sole criteria for authorship and even order of authorship. This is the only objective criteria.

2. Researcher has the right to decide the order of authorship provided he/she understands this right and can speak about it.

3. The researcher must not add any name in the list if that person has not contributed towards research in any way.

4. In Government scientific departments or any lab of Government University, multiple authorship practice is because of bureaucratic work culture.

5. Due to mutual understanding to add name.

6. We must curb unethical practices in research.

They mainly want to please their bosses/superiors and this problem is not limited to the government scientific departments only, rather it spreads everywhere including the private sector.

Yes, the publications co-authored by superior authorities/competent authorities increases manifold over a period of time.

This is all due due to greediness of superior authorities lacking in basic skills.

1. Contribution in research should be the sole criteria for authorship and even order of authorship. This is the only objective criteria.

2. Researcher has the right to decide the order of authorship provided he/she understands this right and can speak about it.

3. The researcher must not add any name in the list if that person has not contributed towards research in any way.

4. In Government scientific departments or any lab of Government University, multiple authorship practice is because of bureaucratic work culture.

5. Due to mutual understanding to add name.

6. We must curb unethical practices in research.

Authorship must be given on the basis of the contribution in research. Giving names in the list of authorship without any contribution and even not seen the research is unethical. Honorary or ceremonial authorship to superior is also unethical. Sometime honorary or ceremonial authors become main authors, then how painful it will be to the original researcher. In labs or where head is more influential/autocrat, it generally happens. In such situations, researchers are sandwiched.

I agree with Mr. Kundu.

In Government scientific departments, bureaucratic culture dominates! 

Multiple authorship practice is very present nowadays. I have not noticed the difference between private and Governmental institution. It is widespread  everywhere!

Here are some fine articles about multiple authorship Who Deserves To Be A Co-Author?,  Who deserves to be an author on a scientific paper?

http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/ranking/dont/2013_02.lasso

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/03/27/who-deserves-to-be-an-author-on-a-scientific-paper/

Dear D.P.S

I think two reasons that it happens spuriously (ie other than genuine collaborative work)

1. You scratch my back, I will scratch yours. Mutual benefit

2. Please the boss and survive. When 10 juniors write a paper each, the Boss will get 10 papers free; may be help him to get a Padmashri. Let him enjoy it poor fellow! May be you will get salary increments in correct time.

But most are careful not to give him First/Principal authorship.

Narayanan

he answer of Subhash C. Kundu summarized all important points about your issue. I think the scientific work completed with contribution with two or many authors. otherwise it could be hypocrisy

Yes, Dear Ljubomir Jacić,

Multiple authorship is again a serious problem in private institutions.

Juniors in private institutions are more fearful than Government organisations as bosses in private organisations are comparatively more powerful to put at loss or even sack.

Whatever or where ever, it is an exploitative and unethical practice!

Thanks to all for contributing your views

Sometimes, had not it been for the boss you would not have the job and therefore would not write any paper on the matter at all.... Of course, in the end, the boss did not do much :-)

is. Consider the boss as a father figure:-)

Narayanan

Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations: "The increase in multidisciplinary research has led to a subsequent expansion of multiple authored articles in nursing as well as other disciplines. Although there are benefits to multiple authorship, there also are areas of possible conflict. The lack of adequate guidelines to address issues that may arise from multiple authorship heightens the possibility of disputes. Developing a blueprint for the preparation and presentation of papers emanating from a research team's work early in the project can avoid conflicts and ensure that the efforts of the appropriate individuals are reflected in the publications. This article discusses several issues related to authorship, including the assignment of authorship credit, the increased pressures to publish, and the complexity of authorship issues associated with multisite studies. The authors offer recommendations to reduce problems that may arise among members of a research team because of authorship issues. In addition, they include the guidelines that their multidisciplinary research team developed early in their project."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9239985

Article Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations

I do expect your comments: Scientific paper sets new record with 5,154 authors!

http://www.miragenews.com/scientific-paper-sets-new-record-with-5154-authors/

Thanks Dr. Ljubomir Jacić for sharing . I do appreciate the efforts and patience of all the authors. Yes, it deserve .

Dear Ljubomir Jacić,

Wonderful! Excellent! What left  to write .... !

From your attachment --- forgive me!

Out of 33 pages in the article, 24 list names of 5,154 authors and affiliations, leaving only 9 pages to the research and references!

See the experiments and collaboration involved!

Thanks!

Dear Ljubomir Jacić,    Yes, this great collaboration involved!.

There is one interesting paper on uranium:  collaboration involved  among 32 authors from different laboratories:

Aqueous solutions of uranium(VI) as studied by time-resolved emission spectroscopy: A round-robin test 

I. Billard, E. Ansoborlo, K. Apperson, S. Arpigny, M.E. Azenha, D. Birch, P. Bros,

H.D. Burrows, G. Choppin, L. Couston, V. Dubois, T. Fanghanel, G. Geipel, S.

Hubert, J.I. Kim, T. Kimura, R. Klenze, A. Kronenberg, M. Kumke, G. Lagarde,

G. Lamarque, S. Lis, C. Madic, G. Meinrath, C. Moulin, R. Nagaishi, D. Parker, G.

Plancque, F. Scherbaum, E. Simoni, S. Sinkov, C. Viallesoubranne,

.Applied Spectroscopy, Society for Applied Spectroscopy, 2003, 57, pp.1027-1038

Article Aqueous Solutions of Uranium(VI) as Studied by Time-Resolved...

In my organization ( Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research) especially in Geology, multiple authorship -adding the name of all superior authorities is a very common unscientific practice: Incharge of group,Incharge of Lab,  Deputy Regional Director, Regional Director, Additional Director and Director. 

The so-called research publications of superior authorities increases manifold over a period of time , of -course in in-house journals, symposiums/seminars and other journals ( especially Current Science). These unscientific practices are simply to manipulate outstanding gradings awarded in APAR's for out of the turn promotions in Geology through internal promotional committee.Such practices are highly destructive for the growth of any organization.

In my view, such unscientific practices/scientific misconducts adopted by superior authorities should be strongly discouraged.

I have recently commented on such publications.

Article Uranium Exploration

Article Anomalous silver concentration in volcano-plutonic rocks