


































Microsoft Word - Shamima Article Authorship


 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25-34 

25 

 

Understanding of Authorship by the Post Graduate Medical Students at a 

Center in Bangladesh 

 

Shamima Parvin Lasker 1, Muslema Begum 2, Arif Hossain3, Md Abdul Matin 4, Saiful 

Islam 5, Darryl Macer 6 

 
1. PhD (USA), MPH (USA), EMMB (Europe), MPhil (BD), MSc (BD), Professor & Head of Anatomy, 
Shahabuddin Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Secretary General, Bangladesh Bioethics Society. 
Email: splasker04@yahoo.com (Corresponding Author) Research ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3484-9526  
2. MD, FCPS, Assistant Professor, Depatment of Anaesthesia & Intensive Care Medicine 

Dhaka Medical College, Bangladesh. Email: muslemabeg@yahoo.com  
3. PhD, Professor & Course Co-ordinator, Etrat University, Iran; Vice President, Bangladesh Bioethics Society.      
Email: ahossainbbs@yahoo.com  
4. PhD, Assistant Director, (Research & Planning), DGHS; Bangladesh. Email: drmatin1963@gmail.com  
5. MPH, MBBS, Medical officer, DGHS, Bangladesh. Email: drsaifulislam@gmail.com  
6. Ph.D., Hon.D., President, American University of Sovereign Nations, USA. Email: provost@ausn.info 

 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v12i1.51970   

 

Abstract: Education on authorship was delivered and evaluated by pre test and post test questionnairen on 
30 post graduate medical students at the Department of Anestheology, Dhaka Medical College, Bangladesh 
between January and June 2019 to understand the knowledge, skill and attitude of post graduate medical 
students on authorship. Result: Before intervention, majority (60%) of the students felt that who perform 
the research work should be the author of the article. But 40% students were divided and felt that who 
advised the design of the research (20%), who provided the grants (10%) and Chief/Head of the division 
(10%) should be the author of the article respectively. Maximum (70%) respondents did not know the order 
of authorship. Of 40% respondent felt that the PI should be always the first author and 40% don’t know the 
answer. Half of the students (50%) felt that keeping honorary author increased the opportunity of 
acceptance of publication. Of 36.7% and 13.3% of students felt that keeping honorary author increased the 
article’s value and made good relation to them to get some extra facility from them respectively. Of 20% 
participants were pressurized by lab head/head of department for inclusion of their name as an author. Half 
of the (56.7 %) respondents felt that the author’s contribution should be stated in the article. Only few 4 
(13.3%) respondents said that their institute had guideline for authorship. However, after education 100% 
of students felt that who perform the research work should be only the author of the article. All (100%) 
respondents understood the order of authorship. Most of the students (86%) felt that PI should be always 
the first author. Of 100% respondent felt supervisor of the research should be the last author. All students 
(100%) felt author’s contribution should be mentioned in the article. All (100%) students did not want to 
include as author those who help in research design and secured grant; and they did not like to keep honorary 
author in their article. All (100%) students expressed that their institute had no guideline for authorship. 
After intervention, three groups of students were asked to write one page of article on Anesthesiology. 
Interestingly, they did not include any name in the author by line who were not participate or had any 
contribution in the writing. Conclusion: The comparative data between pre- and post-text have highlighted 
a general lack of understanding of the basic concept of authorship ethics which significantly improved after 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25-34 

26 

 

the intervention. The results also indicate that the education on authorship improved the awareness of 
postgraduate medical students in a particular centre.  

 
Key word: Authorship, medical student, publication ethics, Bangladesh 

 

Introduction: Authorship is a basis of 
success for a researcher. But authorship 
process needs integrity. Violation of ethics, 
authors dispute arises during pre and post 
publications of the article. This may decrease 
the trust of reader toward academic society.   

In the ancient times, articles generally had no 
authorship1. From middle ages, individuals 
started to feel the senses of authority, 
ownership and concern with plagiarism over 
their writing1. It is the printing press made the 
development of the concept of authorship as 
intellectual property rights in 1440 1. 
However, in 1978, a group of medical journal 
editors in Vancouver, British Columbia 
established publication guidelines for authors 
and editors. They developed International 
Committee of Medical Journal Editors 
(ICMJE), who designed the Uniform 
Requirements for Manuscripts Submission to 
help the authors and editors of the biomedical 
science to promote integrity in authorship 2. 
Currently, most of the journals of biomedical, 
science, social science and other journals 
follow the ICMJE definition of authorship2. 
According to ICMJE, the authors are those 
who have substantial contribution in research 
and can take responsibility for a specific 
section of the research during any allegation. 
Single contribution is not satisfied the 
authorship principles universally e.g. 
procurement of funding, providing technical 
services, suppling research materials or 
chemicals, administration of a research 

group, data collection and analysis; writing or 
editing manuscript etc2.  

But a research found that more than half of 
the articles did not satisfy ICMJE criteria of 
authorship 3. Another study also reported that 
40% article among 6,686 manuscript 
published in Lancet did not meet the ICJME 
criteria of authorship 4.  However, there are 
some authors who neither do work for the 
research, nor met the authorship criteria have 
been attributed as honorary authors or gift 
authors or guest authors 5. Honorary 

authorship is widely condemned and in the 

extreme is considered as misconduct 6. 

From above literature, it is obvious that there 
is gap in basic knowledge of authorship 
ethics especially in early career academics. 
No date has yet been available regarding the 
knowledge, skill and attitude of post graduate 
medical students on authorship in 
Bangladesh. There is no systematic education 
on authorship for the post graduate medical 
students in Bangladesh as well. Therefore, 
this research has been undertaken to aware 
the post graduate medical students about the 
norms and regulation of authorships 
principles to avoid inadvertent violations of 
ethics in writing. This research will generate 
evidence of first time about the knowledge, 
skill and attitude on authorship. The evidence 
of the research may assist in policy decisions 
regarding authorship in medical curriculum 
in Bangladesh. 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

28 

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional 

study was done on 30 post graduate medical 
students at the department of Anestheology, 
Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka, using 30 
self-administered questionnaires between 
January to June 2019. Education was given 
on authorship in a 4 hours long workshop 
starting from 8 am to 12 pm. Survey was done 
by pretest and post-test questionnaire to 
evaluate the current knowledge of authorship 
principles among students. At the end of the 
post-test, all students were divided into three 
groups. They were given a writing task in 
group to understand their skill. It was a pilot 
study.   

Sample were taken purposively according to 
the selection criteria. During workshop, in a 
class room setting, lectures and video 
demonstration on authorship were delivered. 
Students took approximately 15 minutes to 
complete the questionnaire. Questionnaire 
was validated by applying feedback form 
three post-graduate students. Questionnaire 
consisted of two parts: The first part 
concentrated on demographic data about the 
age, sex, and educational qualification of 
participants; number of the publications, 
course or training on publication ethics. The 
second part was dedicated to a self-
assessment questions to evaluate the 
knowledge by multiple choice questions. 
Skill was assessed by 3 level of Likert scale 
by 'yes', 'no or 'not sure' questions.  

Ethical clearance was obtained from 
Bangladesh Medical Research Council 
(BMRC). All the participants were given an 
explanation about the objectives of the study, 
risk/ benefit of the study and right to 
withdrawal of their participation from the 

study. Those who provided their written 
consent could participate in this study only. 
Participants received a copy of IC form for 
their own reference. Confidential were 
maintained properly and results were 
anonymous. Questionnaire and IC form were 
kept in a sealed envelope and were stored in 
a locked and secured place for the period of 
three years. After three year, all the survey 
forms will be destroyed by burning. 

Statistical basis of the sampling technique 
was estimated by Raosoft, where marginal 
error-5%, CI-95%, response distribution-
100%. Data were analyzed using SPSS 
version 22.0 software and MS-Excel 2007. 
Demographic and other variables were 
analyzed by frequency and percentage 
distribution. The knowledge on authorship 
before and after was compared by using a 
Chi-square test. A P< 0.05 was considered 
statistically significant. No questionnaire was 
included for analysis when it was not 
properly filled out. 
 

Results and Discussion: A pilot study was 
done by pre-test and post-test questionnaire 
to understand the awareness of Post Graduate 
Medical Students on authorship by judging 
their knowledge, attitude and skill. 

Demography: The mean±SD age of the 
respondents was 32.52 ±3.37, range between 
28-42 yeas. There were 17 (56.70%) male 
and 13 (43.30%) females among 30 students. 
All the respondents were at thesis part of their 
post graduate study. They did not have any 
previous course or training on principles of 
authorship. There was also no provision for 
systematic education on authorships ethics by 
the institution. Majority (93.3%) of 

27 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

28 

respondents learn authorships ethics from 
their teachers/friends during Post graduate 
course. 

Authorship criteria: In our study, before 
education students were asked whether they 
know the authorship criteria. Majority 
students 23 (76.87%) said that they did not 
know the authorship criteria. But after 
education all the respondents (100%) felt that 
they understood the authorship criteria (Table 
1). The difference was significant. In another 
question, before intervention, students were 
asked what could be the criteria for 
authorships.  Majority (60%) of the 
respondents felt that who perform the 
research work should be the author of the 
article. But other (40%) were divided before 
education. Some felt that who design the 
research 6 (20%), who provide grants 3 

(10%), and chief/Head of the division 3 
(10%) should be the author of the article 
respectively. But after education all the 
respondents (100%) felt that who perform the 
work should be the author of the article 
(Table 1).  

No similar interventional research has been 
found to compare our research. However, 
research regarding the authorships criteria on 
different academics were seen. A research 
said that 21% of the first authors and 34% of 
last authors did not meet ICMJE criteria for 
authorship. Whereas, 50% of the authors in 
between in the author by-line did not meet the 
criteria for authorship 3. At a question to 
corresponding author whether the name was 
mentioned in acknowledgement who had not 
make substantial contribution to the work.  
Of 54% of the corresponding authors said 

that this statement was not applicable to their 
manuscript and 12 corresponding authors did 
not answer this question 3. In a statement 
Vesna et al said that who did not fulfil 
authorship criteria are more prone to commit 
other types of scientific misconduct 3. 

Order of author: In our study, before 
education, respondents were asked about the 
order of authorship. More than half of the 
respondent 18 (60%) felt that they did not 
know the answer. But only 2 (6.7) felt they 
knew the order of authorship. But after 
education all respondents (100%) felt that 
they understood the order of authorship 
(Figure 1, Table 1). At another question, 
students were asked about the sequence of 
authorship. Majority 21 (70 %) felt that 
according to contribution authorship should 
be awarded. But 8 (26%) felt it should be 
depended on chief of the research team. only 
one (3.3%) felt sequence of the authors 
should be write according to Seniority. But 
after education all respondents (100%) felt 
that sequence of authorship should awarded 
according to contribution authorship (Table 
1). Balaji thought that researchers with less 
than six years of research experience found 
authorship decisions more difficult than more 
experienced researchers (48% vs 30%). More 
experienced researchers found decisions on 
authorships and order of authors easier than 
less experienced researchers 7.  

In our research, when we asked whether PI 
should be always the first author. Students  
were divided in their opinion in this question 
before education.  Of 12 (40%), 5 (16.7%)  

 

 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

28 

Table 1: Comparisons on questions of authorship between before and after education on authorship ethics delivered (N=50). 

 Before Education After Education P<0.05*** 

Question 
 
 

Yes No    Don’t  
Know 

Yes    No Don’t 
know 

 

Do you know authorship 
criteria? 

23.33% 76,67%  100%   0.008*** 

Do you understand the 
meaning of the order of 
authors? 

6.7%  60% 18 % 100%   0.000*** 

Should a principal 
investigator always be a 1st 
author on papers? 

58% 12% 30% 86% 14%  0.000*** 

Are you keep honorary 
authors/ guest practices in 
your article? 

20% 20% 60%  100%  0.030*** 

Are you pressurized by lab 
head/ head of department 
for include their name as 
an author? 
 

20% 20% 60% 20% 80%  0.006*** 

Do you like to accept 
authorships when you 
didn't deserve it? 

3.3% 70% 26.7%  100%  0.006*** 

Did you do reciprocal 
agreement with 
colleague/friends to 
exchange authorship to 
increase the number of 
publications?  
 

3.3% 73.3% 23.3%  100%  0.000*** 

Should authors 
contribution be required to 
state in the article? 

56.7 % 
 

20% 23.3% 100%   0.000*** 

Are there guidelines to 
determine who should be 
listed as an author in your 
institute/ country? 
 

20% 10% 70% 80% 10% 2% 0.000*** 

Are there guidelines who 
should be listed in the 
Acknowledgments section 
in your institute/ country 

13.3%% 23.3% 63.3% 100%   0.009*** 

and 12 (40%) felt yes, no, don’t respectively.  
But after education most of the respondents 
(86%) felt that PI should be always the first 
author and 14% felt that PI should not be 
always the first author (Table 1). Before 
education, at a question of who should be the 

last author? Of 15 (50%), 7 (23.3%), 26 
(26.7) felt supervisor, who supervise overall 
research and assistant of research could be 
the last author respectively (Table 1).  

29 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

28 

  

Figure 1 shows the response of a question of whether 
students know the order of authorship 
 
Author credit when not deserve it: At a 
question of whether they were offered an 
author credit when they didn't deserve it. Of 
27 (90%) respondents felt that they had never 
been offered an author credit when they didn't 
deserve it. It may happen because of they 
were post graduate level students and they 
had not had any publication yet. But one 
respondent (3.3%) expressed that he got the 
request. But after education all the 
respondents (100%) felt that they should not 
offered an author credit when they didn't 
deserve it (Table 1). At another question 
whether they were maintained request for 
unauthorized authorship. Majority 21(70%) 
respondents felt they did not maintain request 
for unauthorized authorship. But 1 (3.3) 
respondent felt that he maintained the request 
for unauthorized authorships. Of 8 (26.7) said 
that they don’t know answer. But after 
education most of the respondents (100%) 
felt that they should not accept undeserved 
authorship (Table 1). One respondent who 
expressed that he got a undeserve request and 
he maintained the unauthorized authorship; 
we did not know why he latter denied. Our  

Figure 2 shows that what respondents felt in case of question 
of reciprocal agreement with colleagues to exchange 
authorship to increase the publication (N=30).  

study protocol did not permit us to go for in-
depth interview of that particular student.      
 
Reciprocal agreement: In case of question of 
reciprocal agreement with colleagues to 
exchange authorship to increase the number 
of publications, of 22 (73.3%) respondents 
felt they did not do this whereas 7(23.3%) 
were not sure on this question. But only one 
person (3.3%) felt he did reciprocal 
authorship (Figure 2). But after education 
All respondents (100%) felt that they did not 
do the reciprocal agreement with college to 
exchange authorship to increase the 
publication, (Table 1).  

Honorary authors: In our study, regarding the 
honorary authors, we found that almost half 
13 (43.3%) of respondents felt that honorary 
author should be the most experience person 
in their field. Other felt that the Chief of the 
Davison 6 (20%); who give permission to use 
lab or materials 7(23.3%); internationally 
known persons 4 (13.3%) were the honorary 
author respectively (Figure 3). 
 

30 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

 

Figure 3 shows the response of a question of students 
whether they know the meaning of honorary 
authorship (N=30). 

 
At a question of why did you like to keep 
honorary author? Half of respondents 15 
(50%) felt that keeping honorary author 
opportunity would increase the number of 
publications.  Of 11 (36.7%) and 4 (13.3%) 
felt that keeping honorary author, article 
value would increase and make good relation 
to get some extra facility for them 
respectively (Figure 4).  But after education, 
all respondents (100%) felt that they did not 
like to keep honorary author (Table 1). 
Almost similar result has been found. Vesna 
pointed out that 18% of authors were 
honorary authorship in their study and 55% 
were ICMJE-defined honorary authorship3. 
Another survey reported that the prevalence 
of guest/honorary authorship varies up to 
60%. Articles with more than five authors 
have more gift or honorary authors than 
articles with three authors. If excludes the 
honorary / guest and gift author number 
would decline into two8. 

In our study 20% participants were 
pressurized by lab head/head of department 
for inclusion of their name as an author. No 

similar researched had not been found to 
compare our research. But research from 
Balaji found that preclinical teachers (Basic 
science) experienced more (46%) pressure to 
include undeserved authors in their papers 
than in paraclinical (community medicine) 
(25%)7.  In our study, half of the (56.7 %) 
respondents felt that the author’s contribution 
should be stated in the article. But after 
intervention all students (100%) felt author’s 
contribution should be mentioned in the 
article. 

 
Figure 4 shows the reasons to keep honorary 
authorship (N=30). 

The causes of misconduct in authorships are 
poorly understood. Actually, academic 
promotion systems put substantial pressure 
on researches to produce numerous research 
publications9 that may include undeserve 
authorships. The judgment systems for 
funding also considers quantity rather than 
quality of publications 6,10. In addition, 
pressure to publish with lack of time, tight 
deadlines and other competing pressures may 
be the case of misconduct in authorship11.  
Publish or perish is the today's competitive 
world’s maxim.  Therefore, it is tremendous 
pressure of researchers to publish significant 
number of articles per year to ensure 

31 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

 

continuity in academia, funding, and fulfill 
the expectations of institution. This is another 
leading cause of increase inappropriate 
authorships 12. Lacanian emphasizes that the 
individuals involved in misconduct in face of 
more fundamental and devastating forms of 
crisis, which fail researcher to abide by codes 
and guidelines13.  According to Freudian-
psychoanalytical perspective, when scientific 
research emerges as an impossible profession 
and challenged and frustrated to succeed by 
the researchers (the scientific super-ego) that 
conflicting imperatives and may easily 
become tormented the subjects 13.  

Some researchers believe that research is a 
group work. Where some arrange to work 
part by part such as thesis writing or 
manuscript writing or publication (author 
tasks), others conduct out research in 
allocation by part or data collection or data 
analysis of (non-author tasks) to give more 
effort and time in individual section to 
achieve scientific goal and considers each 
author should be listed in author byline. 
However, this arguments of “passive 
contribution” are not accepted by the most of 
the journals 8.  

How can a junior handle in an unethical 
request of seniors in authorships who do not 
have any substantial contribution? Daniel K 
Sokol suggested that it will not be wise to 
refuse senior to say using words such as 
honesty, trust, fairness, professionalism, or 
academic integrity rather it is better to say 
that the journal requires to sign an authorship 
form from all authors to satisfy authorship 
criteria. It may make the senior to feel 
morally attacked by highlighting the 
inappropriateness of the request14. In this 

way, the junior can be able to avoid 
participating in an unethical practice. In 
addition, medical journals should adopt 
various measures to discourage the practice 
of inappropriate authorship 14. 

In our study, majority 25 (83.3%) 
respondents did not know whether they had 
faced any type of problem yet.  Where one 1 
(3.3%) student faced the situation that they 
did not include a name who was author 
mistakenly. Two (6.7%) included a person 
without his permission and 2 (6.7%) included 
a person but he/she did not do any research. 
At another question of who would be the 
responsible during authorships dispute?  Half 
of the respondents 15 (50%) felt Chief 
Researcher would be the responsible during 
authorships dispute.  Other 4 (13.3) , 4(13.3), 
4(13.3) and 3 (10%)  respondents  felt Senior 
of the research team, Chief of the division, 
grant institution and journal would be the 
responsible during authorship dispute 
respectively (Figure 5).  

Our study population were postgraduate 
students, most of them had yet no 
publication. But it is interesting to compare 
study of Balaji that 29% respondents had 
been denied authorship they believed they 
deserved it. Only 41.5% responders were 
aware of ghost authorship. A gift or guest 
authorship was offered to 10.7 % study 
participants whereas 14.35% had been ghost 
author7. Actually, university set criterion on 
number of publications for researcher's career 
evaluation is the main cause of inappropriate 
authorships7. However, disputes cases 
regarding authorships were the most frequent 
scientific misconduct in the Nordic 
countries15.  

32 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

 

Guidelines: Before education, respondents 
were asked whether their institute had any 
guideline for authorship. More than 

 
Figure 5 shows that response of at a question of who 
would be the responsible during authorship dispute 
(N=30) 

 
half 19 (63.3%) respondents did not know 
whether their institute had any guideline for 
authorship criteria. Some 7 (23.3%) said their 
institute had no guideline for authorship and 
few 4 (13.3%) said that their institute had 
guideline for authorship. But after 
intervention, Majority respondents (80%) felt 
that their institute had no guideline for 
authorship (Table 1). A study among 100 
countries on authorship education result 
showed that 67% countries had received 
some publication ethics training, 41% 
country had received no course and only a 
small proportion rated training received as 
excellent9. 

Writing to the students: After post-test on 
authorships ethics, all medical students were 
asked to divide into 3 groups. Each group 
contained 10 students. After group 
discussion, students were asked to write one 
page of article on Anesthesiology. Writings 
were checked. It is interesting to note down 

that no name was included in the author by 
line who were not participate or had any 
contribution in the writing. It could be 
concluded that their skill on authorships were 
increased by intervention.  

Limitation of survey: There were certain 
limitations in the present survey. This was a 
questionnaire-based survey and hence the results 
rely upon the replies that were received. 
However, as this was a first and pilot study from 
Bangladesh, an effort to capture the existing 
situation of the level of knowledge, attitude, and 
skill in authorships ethical in scientific writing in 
the Bangladesh. Hence it needs to be validated 
through further study by undertaking with large 
number of participants and more duration of time 
for training/workshop in the near future. The 
sample size of this study was limited. It may not 
represent the national scenario.  

 

Conclusions: An interventional study was 
done on 30 post graduate medical students at 
the department of Anestheology, Dhaka 
Medical College, Dhaka, between January to 
June 2019. Survey was done by pretest and 
posttest questionnaires questionnaire to 
understand the current knowledge, attitude 
and skill of the postgraduate students on 
authorships ethics. The comparative data 
between pre- and post-text had highlighted a 
general lack of understanding of the basic 
concept authorships which improved after the 
intervention. Knowledge of students were 
significantly increased by the workshop on 
authorship. More workshops with large 
sample large number of students are needed 
on authorships to finally conclude substantial 
remark of success of the intervention.  
 

Recommendations: We sanctioned four 

recommendations, e.g. 1. Supervisors should 

33 



 

Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2021; 12 (1): 25- 

 

 

recommend authorships principles, so that 
research students can be competence enough 
and can handle the issue of inappropriateness 
when it arises. 2. Institutions, universities 
should encourage in authorships ethics 
education. 3. Editors and publishers should 
endorse a policy on authorship to prevent 
wrongness with scientific medical writings. 
4. Government should take policy to 
incorporate authorships ethics in post 
graduate curriculum at university level.  
 

 
 

 

 

Acknowledgement: We express our sincere 
indebtedness and heartfelt thanks to Director General 
of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Healthy, 
People Republic of Bangladesh under Health, 
Population and Nutrition Sector Development 
Programme [HPNSP] for their support to complete 
this research. It was impossible to finish this novel 
research without their kind support. We express our 
thanks and deepest regards to all the participants of 
this research for their co-operation and collaboration. 

 

References: 
1.Lisa E. The Concept of Authorship: An Historical 
Perspective. Annual Meeting of the National Council of 
Teachers of English 1985.  
2.ICMJE (International committee for medical Journal 
Editors) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, 
editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical 
Journals 2015;1-17.  www.icmje.org 
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-
responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-
contributors.html  (access on July 2018) 
3. Vesna ŠS, Ana M, Dragana A, Martina H, Jelena O, Ana-
Maria Š. ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a 
substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to 
Biochemia Medica. Biochem Med J 2015;25(3):324–334.  
4. Seog Hee Park, MD Kyu Ho Choi, MD Young Ha Park, 
MD Researcher Contributions and Fulfillment of ICMJE 
Authorship Criteria: Analysis of Author Contribution Lists 
in Research Articles with Multiple Authors Published in 
Radiology 2003; 226; 1:16-23  
5. CSE (Council Science Editors). CSE’s White Paper on 
Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. 

Editorial Policy Committee. 2012. 
www.CouncilScienceEditors.org (Access on Feb 2019). 
6. Molly TL, Elbert DG, Robert JMcD. Publication Ethics: 
An Examination of Authorship Practices. Am J Health 
Behav 2005 ; 29(6): 579-587. 
7. Balaji DM , Anju BM, Harsh JS. Knowledge, attitudes and 
practices of medical researchers toward authorship in 
scientific journals. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 
2020;9(4):582-589. 
8. Sandeep BB. 2012. Authorship issues.Lung India. 2012 
Jan-Mar; 29(1): 76–80. 
9. Sara S, Jason R, Elizabeth L, Donald BP, Sarah M, 
Timothy TH. Biomedical authors’ awareness of publication 
ethics: an international survey. BMJ Open 2018; 
8:e021282:1-14. 
10. Psooy K. 2010. Underserved authorship: too much of a 
good thing. Canadian Urology Association J, 4:391–2. 
11 Sharma BB and Singh V 2011. Ethics in writing: 
Learning to stay away from plagiarism and scientific 
misconduct Lung India. 28(2): 148–150. 
12.Baethge C. 2008. Publish together or perish: the 
increasing number of authors per article in academic journals 
is the consequence of a changing scientific culture: some 
researchers define authorship quite loosely. Dtsch Arztebl 
Int 105;20:380-383. 
13. Zwart H. 2017. Tales of Research Misconduct. A 
Lacanian Diagnostics of Integrity Challenges in Science 
Novels. Springer Opens, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 
14. Daniel KS. 2008. The dilemma of authorship. BMJ. 1; 
336 (7642): 478. 
15.Magne NF, Peter K. Authorship: attitudes and practice 
among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics 2014, 
15:53 

 

Author Contributions: 1st author Shamima Lasker 
conceived the idea, planed the research design,  did the 
literature review and wrote the 1st draft. 2nd author 
Muslema Begum did the research design, conducted 
the workshop, gathered the data and done the statistics 
wrote the manuscript and checked the manuscript 
meticulously. 3rd author Arif Hossain, 4th author Md 
Abdul Matin and 5th author Saiful Islam conducted 
the workshop, planed the research design, guided the 
research and checked the manuscript meticulously. 
Last author Darryl Macer guided the conception of the 
idea, the manuscript writing process, and checked the 
manuscript meticulously. 
 
Conflict of interests:  The authors declared that there 
is no conflict of interest in this study.

 

34 


