The elephant in the room: Authorship practices Authorship is one of the most important forms of recognition in academia. It shapes careers, influences promotion, and signals contribution. But it is also one of the least openly discussed aspects of research. ________________________________________ What authorship is supposed to represent In principle, authorship reflects meaningful intellectual contribution. ⚫️ Developing the idea ⚫️ Designing the study ⚫️ Conducting the analysis ⚫️ Writing and revising the paper Most guidelines are clear on this. But practice does not always follow principle. ________________________________________ What many researchers quietly observe Across disciplines, a range of authorship practices are widely recognised: ⚫️ Individuals listed as authors despite limited involvement ⚫️ Senior figures included by default ⚫️ Contributors omitted despite significant input ⚫️ Disagreements over author order ⚫️ Authorship influenced by hierarchy rather than contribution These situations are not rare. They are often understood, sometimes accepted, and occasionally challenged. ________________________________________ Why this matters Authorship is not just symbolic. It affects: ⚫️ Career progression ⚫️ Research funding opportunities ⚫️ Academic reputation ⚫️ Trust in the research record When authorship does not accurately reflect contribution, the system becomes distorted. ________________________________________ Why the issue persists Part of the challenge is structural. ⚫️ Incentive systems reward publication counts ⚫️ Power dynamics can make it difficult to question decisions ⚫️ Norms vary across disciplines and institutions ⚫️ Clear policies do not always translate into consistent practice As a result, many researchers navigate authorship informally rather than transparently. ________________________________________ A question worth asking If authorship is meant to reflect contribution… how closely does it match reality in practice? ________________________________________ This is one of the quieter challenges in scholarly publishing. But perhaps it deserves a more open conversation?