Nursing Ethics http://nej.sagepub.com/
Why editors should never be ''ghost'' or ''gift'' authors Kevin Grandfield Nurs Ethics 2014 21: 374 DOI: 10.1177/0969733014520895 The online version of this article can be found at: http://nej.sagepub.com/content/21/3/374
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Nursing Ethics can be found at: Email Alerts: http://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://nej.sagepub.com/content/21/3/374.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 30, 2014 What is This?
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
Comment
Why editors should never be ‘‘ghost’’ or ‘‘gift’’ authors
Nursing Ethics 2014, Vol. 21(3) 374–375 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0969733014520895 nej.sagepub.com
Kevin Grandfield University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Editors’ duties often include alerting authors when a particular piece of writing may not be in line with the ethics guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),1 the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),2 the target journal, or other pertinent organizations. Editors can look for certain red flags, such as lengthy author lists, claims of primacy (‘‘the first study,’’ ‘‘strongest evidence yet,’’ etc.), or lack of mention of appropriate approval and ethical procedures for the study design. But is there a point at which the activity of editing crosses the line and becomes unethical ghost writing or gift writing? I am not a journal editor but rather edit for authors submitting for peer review. Nurse authors often express concern that editors will ‘‘change their meaning.’’ Good editors will clarify meaning, and they will do so by changing words. Changing phrasing, paragraph structure, and so on does not constitute ghost writing. I offer the alternative term ‘‘ghost reading.’’ Good editors act as an educated audience would upon first reading your text. Writing that makes sense to the author may be open to misunderstanding by a first-time reader. That is why we have rules and conventions for written language, and good editors will fit your intended message into those to prevent confusion. Overly interpreting or assuming the meaning of unclear writing can run the risk of crossing over into ghost writing. ‘‘Ghost authors meet authorship criteria, but are not listed on the byline.’’3 Writing has been called ‘‘sustained speech.’’ I ask the authors with whom I work to explain to me points on which I am unclear. If they can orally convey to me the meaning, then I feel it is acceptable for me to help them put that into proper sustained speech. I am not misrepresenting their ability to conduct science and relate their findings to the literature. I am merely helping them do so in proper written English. I suggest wording and they can reject it, agree with it, or offer an alternative. Because we reach mutual consensus, there is no danger of ‘‘changing meaning,’’ only words. This is perhaps especially important when working with the increasing number of authors for whom English is a second language—as is assuring that they understand the conventions and ethics of the culture of science publishing. No matter how much reorganization, clarification, or suggestions editors offer, they should not be added as a ‘‘gift author.’’ Gift authors are described as individuals ‘‘who did not meet all three criteria, but who were listed on the byline anyway.’’3 ICMJE guidelines are clear that authorship must involve contribution to all three: conceptualizing and performing the study, crafting the first draft, and approving the final draft. Any ‘‘editor’’ who has done all of these is likely a member of the research team and worthy of authorship. If such a person is associated with an entity that stands to gain from the findings being reported, there is already a mechanism in place to warn readers: conflict of interest. COPE offers helpful guidelines for how to identify if appropriate authorship is missing or unmet and what to do if and when ghost or gift authors are suspected and/or identified.2 Corresponding author: Kevin Grandfield, Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 S. Damen Ave. (M/C 802), Chicago, IL 60612-3727, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
Grandfield
375
Good editors will not only help you follow publishing ethics, they will follow editing ethics as well. Publishing ethics is the responsibility of all editors and requires an awareness of the problematic activities of ‘‘ghost’’ and ‘‘gift’’ authorship. References 1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: authorship and contributorship, http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html (2013, accessed 21 October 2013). 2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship, http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04E_Author_Ghost_Guest_Gift.pdf (2008). 3. Vinther S and Rosenberg J. Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Laeger and Danish Medical Journal. Dan Med J 2012; 59: A4455.
375
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
Why editors should never be ''ghost'' or ''gift'' authors Kevin Grandfield Nurs Ethics 2014 21: 374 DOI: 10.1177/0969733014520895 The online version of this article can be found at: http://nej.sagepub.com/content/21/3/374
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Nursing Ethics can be found at: Email Alerts: http://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://nej.sagepub.com/content/21/3/374.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 30, 2014 What is This?
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
Comment
Why editors should never be ‘‘ghost’’ or ‘‘gift’’ authors
Nursing Ethics 2014, Vol. 21(3) 374–375 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav 10.1177/0969733014520895 nej.sagepub.com
Kevin Grandfield University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Editors’ duties often include alerting authors when a particular piece of writing may not be in line with the ethics guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),1 the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),2 the target journal, or other pertinent organizations. Editors can look for certain red flags, such as lengthy author lists, claims of primacy (‘‘the first study,’’ ‘‘strongest evidence yet,’’ etc.), or lack of mention of appropriate approval and ethical procedures for the study design. But is there a point at which the activity of editing crosses the line and becomes unethical ghost writing or gift writing? I am not a journal editor but rather edit for authors submitting for peer review. Nurse authors often express concern that editors will ‘‘change their meaning.’’ Good editors will clarify meaning, and they will do so by changing words. Changing phrasing, paragraph structure, and so on does not constitute ghost writing. I offer the alternative term ‘‘ghost reading.’’ Good editors act as an educated audience would upon first reading your text. Writing that makes sense to the author may be open to misunderstanding by a first-time reader. That is why we have rules and conventions for written language, and good editors will fit your intended message into those to prevent confusion. Overly interpreting or assuming the meaning of unclear writing can run the risk of crossing over into ghost writing. ‘‘Ghost authors meet authorship criteria, but are not listed on the byline.’’3 Writing has been called ‘‘sustained speech.’’ I ask the authors with whom I work to explain to me points on which I am unclear. If they can orally convey to me the meaning, then I feel it is acceptable for me to help them put that into proper sustained speech. I am not misrepresenting their ability to conduct science and relate their findings to the literature. I am merely helping them do so in proper written English. I suggest wording and they can reject it, agree with it, or offer an alternative. Because we reach mutual consensus, there is no danger of ‘‘changing meaning,’’ only words. This is perhaps especially important when working with the increasing number of authors for whom English is a second language—as is assuring that they understand the conventions and ethics of the culture of science publishing. No matter how much reorganization, clarification, or suggestions editors offer, they should not be added as a ‘‘gift author.’’ Gift authors are described as individuals ‘‘who did not meet all three criteria, but who were listed on the byline anyway.’’3 ICMJE guidelines are clear that authorship must involve contribution to all three: conceptualizing and performing the study, crafting the first draft, and approving the final draft. Any ‘‘editor’’ who has done all of these is likely a member of the research team and worthy of authorship. If such a person is associated with an entity that stands to gain from the findings being reported, there is already a mechanism in place to warn readers: conflict of interest. COPE offers helpful guidelines for how to identify if appropriate authorship is missing or unmet and what to do if and when ghost or gift authors are suspected and/or identified.2 Corresponding author: Kevin Grandfield, Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, 845 S. Damen Ave. (M/C 802), Chicago, IL 60612-3727, USA. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
Grandfield
375
Good editors will not only help you follow publishing ethics, they will follow editing ethics as well. Publishing ethics is the responsibility of all editors and requires an awareness of the problematic activities of ‘‘ghost’’ and ‘‘gift’’ authorship. References 1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: authorship and contributorship, http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html (2013, accessed 21 October 2013). 2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship, http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04E_Author_Ghost_Guest_Gift.pdf (2008). 3. Vinther S and Rosenberg J. Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Laeger and Danish Medical Journal. Dan Med J 2012; 59: A4455.
375
Downloaded from nej.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on October 2, 2014
![[Authors-reviewers and editors, parasitism or symbiosis?].](/assets/img/hold.png)
