
==== Front
J Korean Med Sci
J Korean Med Sci
JKMS
Journal of Korean Medical Science
1011-8934
1598-6357
The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences

10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e285
Correspondence
Editing, Writing & Publishing
Letter to the Editor: Recognizing Coercion Authorship as a Serious Form of Research Misconduct
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1925-636X
Tang Bor Luen
Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Address for Correspondence: Bor Luen Tang, PhD. Department of Biochemistry, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Health System, National University of Singapore, 8 Medical Dr, Singapore 117596, Singapore. bchtbl@nus.edu.sg
23 9 2024
04 9 2024
39 36 e28507 8 2024
25 8 2024
© 2024 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.
2024
The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable
==== Body
pmcTo the Editor:

In the opinion article entitled “Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable”,1 Dr. Rivera commented on the widespread nature of coercion authorship and exerted that despite its common occurrence, such malpractices are preventable. While I very much concur with the former notion, I have more reservations with the latter. If I understand coercion authorship correctly, it will broadly include all kinds of inappropriate authorship assignments that involve some form of coercion, which basic nature might otherwise be called honorary, gift, or guest authorships. These typically occur when junior authors who did most of the work were told by senior authors in supervisory roles or positions of power to include underserved coauthors. Also falling within this category would be the devious acts of “hostage authorship” described by Bülow and Helgesson,2 when undeserving individuals asked for authorship from those who did the work in exchange of a unique or critical reagent, instrument or technique.

There were four recommendations made by Dr. Rivera to prevent coercion authorship. The first two involve research ethics education mandated for both junior scientists/researchers and senior group leaders/principal investigators. The third and fourth include setting up clear institutional policies and mechanisms (such as ombudspersons) to deal with inappropriate authorship assignments. These are undoubtedly prudent and useful recommendations, and where already implemented have raised awareness and perhaps curbed the most blatant attempts at inappropriate authorship practices. However, major questions remain regarding these measures’ true effectiveness. One reason for this is the known plurality in authorship practices,3 and a coauthor’s perceived contribution to a paper could always be argued or justified. Furthermore, it is often very difficult for a junior researcher to go against the “academic” opinion of a senior person when one’s degree/graduation or job is entirely in the latter’s hands. Merely discouraging coercion authorship with teachings and mediation is insufficient. What would be needed is to instill absolute disincentives against such practices, so much so that coercion authorship shall be unequivocally viewed as academic violations that carry severe sanctions.

Inappropriate authorship practices have largely been classified under questionable research practices (QRP)4 and not research misconduct per se. This is perhaps partly because the widely accepted definition of research misconduct by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has a somewhat limited specification on what constitutes research misconduct, namely acts of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (or FFP).5 I hereby posit that the practice of coercion authorship qualifies as acts of falsification. As defined by ORI, “Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record”. This brief definition can be interpreted more broadly, in that falsification could also involve manipulations that obfuscate the presentation of accurate information on the intellectual attribution of research. Inappropriate authorships, particularly the ones attained through coercion, recklessly and forcibly muddle the facts and obscures the true association between researcher and research results, and as such misrepresents the research record. Such misrepresentations are no less wrong than the misrepresentation of research data, for the same moral foundation of honesty, upon which the authenticity and veracity of research rests, has been violated.

If the above argument stands to reason, the status of transgression for coercion authorship should then be elevated from being a QRP to one of research misconduct. In line with established research ethics codes in many federal agencies, academic institutions as well as academic publishing entities, which are largely based on ORI’s definitions of research misconduct, the latter would entail much more severe sanctions. In summary, to effectively deal with the erosion of science and research by coercion authorship, we must first acknowledge and define it as a fundamental wrong that should be severely dealt with. Its classification under the “falsification” category of research misconduct would do just that.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to both reviewers, whose constructive comments helped improve the manuscript.

Disclosure: The author has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
==== Refs
1 Rivera H Coercion authorship: ubiquitous and preventable J Korean Med Sci 2024 39 30 e215 39106886
2 Bülow W Helgesson G Hostage authorship and the problem of dirty hands Res Ethics 2018 14 1 1 9
3 Tang BL Letter to the editor: On plurality and authorship in science Account Res 2018 25 4 254 258 29587536
4 Larsson T Plonsky L Sterling S Kytö M Yaw K Wood M On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices Res Methods Appl Linguist 2023 2 3 100064
5 US Office of Research Integrity Updated 2023 Accessed August 7, 2024 https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
