How to Deal with the Concept of Authorship and the Approval of an Institutional Review Board When Writing and Editing Journal Articles

ABSTRACT

This paper examined the concept of ‘authorship,’ the ‘approval of an institutional review board (IRB),’ and the authorship dispute and IRB issues resolution process. Descriptions were based on international guidelines and the literature on research and publication ethics. ‘Authorship’ entails a promise among co-authors, and as such, outsiders should not be involved. Usually, authorship disputes stem from internal researcher conflict, especially in cases involving the ghost author issue. Qualifying as an author is based on the four criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors substantial contributions, drafting the work, final approval, and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. However, these criteria vary according to the academic category. Furthermore, author taxonomy has been introduced to clarify each author’s role. Author order also entails a promise among co-authors. The IRB may exempt studies on human subjects or human derivatives that are not related to subjects’ safety or do not utilize subjects’ personal information from review or from obtaining informed consent. At the core of medical journals’ research and publication ethics issues, such as authorship and the IRB’s approval, is a commitment to ensuring ‘the safety and privacy of subjects and patients.’ Given the importance of this principle, research and publication ethics issues are due considerable attention.