Early Career Forum
Authorship for Early Scientific Researchers: Ethics and Responsibility
Harsh Deora
S cientific knowledge is achieved through research, discus-
sion, and debate.1 For many fresh neurosurgeons, a
seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and,
regrettably, only formal exposure to responsible conduct in
research.2 Responsible conduct should be part of the surgical
curriculum.3 As neurosurgeons, our responsibilities are often
divided between clinical work and research. Here I explore the
responsibilities of being a neurosurgeon scientist with a lens on
ethics in publishing. I discuss the specific reasons for actions
rather than stating definite conclusions about what should or
should not be done in particular situations, and hope that this
will be beneficial to neurosurgeons desiring to progress in this
field.
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH IN
NEUROSURGERY?
Neurosurgery has not been shielded from the effects of unethical
research. In a recent review of all the retracted English language
articles published in Neurosurgery between 1995 and 2017, Wang
et al.4 found a total of 97 such articles with the most common
reason being duplicate publication by the same author in 2
different journals (26 articles), followed by self-plagiarism/
plagiarism of others (22 articles), fraudulent data (13 articles),
data error (11 articles), author misattribution (7 articles), and 1
article each for copyright issues, withdrawal at the author's
request for fear of infringing the intellectual property of others,
absence of informed consent from patients' parents, and lack of
ethics approval. These retracted articles were from China (n ¼ 29),
the United States (n ¼ 24), Korea (n ¼ 6), and India (n ¼ 6), and
18 other 22 countries. The number of retractions increased from 16
between 1995 and 1999 to 38 between 2015 and 2017. It is critical
that we review our policies before our integrity as researchers
begins to be questioned.4
ETHICS
Any falsified research can push back or deviate a field by centuries
as researchers are led on wrong paths or, worse, start testing an
incorrect hypothesis based on the results. A researcher who gets
away with bending the rules once shall forever be doomed by
temptation. Ensuring the validity of research requires 2 steps that
Department of Neurosurgery, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences,
Bangalore, India
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Harsh Deora, M.Ch., D.N.B.
[E-mail: demo5601@gmail.com]
Citation: World Neurosurg. (2020) 134:510-511.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.087
510 www.SCIENCEDIRECT.com
must be followed to ensure that the data collection methodology is
clearly described and accurate. To be truly responsible, early re-
searchers must understand how to treat data responsibly.5
Depending on the level of research, this may require entering
data into bound and numbered notepads using permanent ink
or using a computer application with secure data entry fields
that identifies when and where work was done and retaining the
data for a stipulated duration.1 Once the research conclusions
have been drawn, the data need to be tendered along with the
research.
Negligence and errors must be differentiated. Even in the best
of environments, there can be instances where we must rely on a
theoretical or experimental technique or a hypothesis that is not
fully developed. Despite best efforts, human errors do occur;
however, this differs from negligence, which is usually the result
of haste, carelessness, or inattention—all of which can lead to
disaster. An honest error can be corrected subsequent to a pub-
lication in a note, erratum (for a production error), or corri-
gendum (for an author's error).1
RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH
The US Office of Science and Technology has defined misconduct
as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, per-
forming, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.”
Essentially, misconduct comprises 3 key aspects: fabricating
results or data; manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes and changing or omitting data or results such that the
research is not accurately represented in the research record; and
appropriating another person's ideas, processes, results, or words
without giving appropriate credit.1 It should be the responsibility
of all coauthors to cross-check the data before submission, and
this should not fall only on the primary or corresponding author.
This can involve simple clarifications of the results or instituting
research integrity officers whose sole job is to ensure the cor-
rectness of represented facts.1 Misconduct can range from lesser
offenses, such as “salami publishing” (dividing research into
least publishable units) to the blatant fabrication of results.
For neurosurgeons, the usual subjects of research are humans,
and thus it is important to understand the “Common Rule,” which
was published in 1991 and includes 4 parts: subpart A, also known
as the Federal Policy or the “Common Rule”; subpart B, additional
Journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/world-neurosurgery
Available online: www.sciencedirect.com
1878-8750/$ - see front matter ª 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.087
 EARLY CAREER FORUM
HARSH DEORA GUIDELINES FOR EARLY AUTHORS

protections for pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates;
subpart C, additional protections for prisoners; and subpart D,
additional protections for children. In addition, while conducting
animal research funded by the US Public Health Service's Policy on
the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals should be fol-
lowed.1 Approval of the Institutional Review Board usually ensures
that these guidelines have been adhered to.
PEER REVIEW AND AUTHORSHIP
Henry Oldenburg, the secretary of the Royal Society of London,
was to first to send submitted manuscripts to experts who could
judge their quality, and thus gave birth to the modern practice of
peer review.3 Because of this, any new publication could cite the
previous paper from which the idea was inspired, and hence the
citation index became a measure of the value of a paper. Proper
citation is very important. As journals and publications expand,
it has become even more difficult to organize, with a number of
papers having incorrect spellings, titles, years, or page numbers
of citations, leading to loss of valuable credit. Publication
practices need to be smart. Some authors may attend
conferences just to steal an idea for publication and then
conduct quick and incomplete research to publish before the
presenting team. This practice has also been seen in peer
reviewers, who reject a publication and steal the idea just to
publish their own article in the same journal.6 To prevent this
practice, all presented papers should have already been sent
for peer review or at the very least be completed and ready for
review before being presented at a conference.
Authorship order in an article determines each author's relative
importance to the work.3 An early and frank discussion on the
same at the conception of the idea is always a good choice.
Interdisciplinary collaborations are often difficult, and first and
corresponding authors should be determined beforehand, and
the researcher who spends most of his or her time working on
the project should be credited. “Gifted” or “honorary”
authorship is often the result of inclusion of an author with
“considerable influence,” either as a favor or to increase the
likelihood of publication. “Ghost” authorship is the case where
the person who has actually written the paper is not included,
usually when “professional” authors write the paper for
researchers. A footnote accompanying the list of authors that
apportions responsibility for different parts of the paper is a
useful methodology.1 However, this should not deter one from
pursuing collaborative efforts if the author roles have been
defined clearly.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Intellectual property is defined as the legal right to control the
application of an idea in a specific context (through a patent) or to
control the expression of an idea (through copyright). It thus
allows the author or the organization to benefit from its idea while
allowing it to be disseminated widely and hence made available for
future work.1 Legal action can be initiated in the event such an
idea is copied without consent or proper reimbursement.
Publication can be delayed, especially if the work involves a
patent, so as to allow time to replicate the same. Institutions
usually own the data or patents generated by a researcher, and a
contract specifying this should be established before publication.4
Conflict of interest is another topic that many early authors are
unaware of, apart from the mandatory disclosure statement. “In-
tellectual conflict” implies forcing researchers to work on com-
mercial projects that might not be a part of their academic work or
accepting a grant to do work that will help researchers financially
while ignoring the work of their students. “Financial conflicts of
interest” arise from authors receiving a payment for an invention
or a bonus to promote the product or manufacturers funding the
research that demonstrates their product's superiority.1 These
conflicts should be managed through a formal review process in
which potential conflicts are identified, disclosed, and
discussed. There can be a limit on the time allowed to
researchers to promote or discuss other products, and any
strong philosophical, religious, cultural, or political beliefs that
could influence scientific judgments should be identified before
assigning research to a particular individual.1
Individuals who complain about unethical practices may expe-
rience a negative impact on their careers and opportunities. It is
important to safeguard the interests of whistleblowers against any
retaliatory repercussions.4 On the other hand, deliberately making
false accusations is highly unethical and must be avoided.
CONCLUSIONS
Responsible research and authorship is extremely important for
neurosurgeons. Many rules are not followed because they are not
known or fully understood. Neurosurgeon-scientists’ knowledge
of these rules at an early stage in their careers is essential for
establishing good publishing practices.

4. Wang J, Ku JC, Alotaibi NM, Rutka JT. Retraction commercial or financial relationships that could be construed
REFERENCES of neurosurgical publications: a systematic review. as a potential conflict of interest.
World Neurosurg. 2017;103:809-814.e1.
1. National Academy of Sciences. On Being a Scientist: Citation: World Neurosurg. (2020) 134:510-511.
A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research. 3rd ed. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.087
5. Goel A, Kothari M. Academics and Indian neuro-
Washington, DC: National Academies Press;
surgery. World Neurosurg. 2013;79:632-635. Journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/world-
2009.
neurosurgery
6. McCook A. Dear peer reviewer, you stole my paper:
2. Deora H, Tripathi M, Yagnick NS, Deora S, Available online: www.sciencedirect.com
an author’s worst nightmare. Available at: https://
Mohindra S, Batish A. Changing hands: why being
retractionwatch.com/2016/12/12/dear-peer-reviewer- 1878-8750/$ - see front matter ª 2019 Elsevier Inc. All
ambidextrous is a trait that needs to be acquired
stole-paper-authors-worst-nightmare/. Accessed rights reserved.
and nurtured in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg.
June 1, 2019.
2019;122:487-490.

3. Deora H, Yagnick NS, Tripathi M. Letter to the

editor: the career of an academic neurosurgeon: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the
back to the future. J Neurosurg. 2019;15:1-2. article content was composed in the absence of any

WORLD NEUROSURGERY 134: 510-511, FEBRUARY 2020 www.journals.elsevier.com/world-neurosurgery 511