Editorial (August 2025)

I have written about different aspects of the responsible and ethical conduct of research (RECR) in the past, also referred to as responsible conduct of research (RCR). I think it is beneficial for us all to be reminded about these important issues and best practices for avoiding pitfalls that might lead to questionable research practices or even research misconduct. We can all agree that RECR is critical for excellence in scholarship and is vital for the public's trust and confidence in science and engineering. The responsible and ethical conduct of research involves not only a responsibility to generate and disseminate knowledge with rigor and integrity, but also a responsibility to (i) conduct peer review with the highest ethical standards, (ii) diligently protect proprietary information and intellectual property from inappropriate disclosure, and (iii) treat students and colleagues fairly and with respect (see https://www.nsf.gov/od/recr.jsp).

Here, I would like to offer some reminders about best practices in authorship (initially published May 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/elan.202200207). Publishing the product(s) of research work is one of the most important tasks we undertake as scientists. Authorship gives one recognition and credit for work accomplished, necessitates accountability for reported research and scholarship, confers ethical and legal obligations (copyright), and is influential in shaping one's academic career. Electroanalysis seeks to publish original, innovative, and impactful work in the field. For good or bad, we are judged on the number and quality of our published works. The drive to publish work can lead one into making poor decisions regarding the assignment of authorship and or the content presented. Authorship issues remain a concern for editorial teams and publishers.

There are clear guidelines for assigning authorship. These guidelines are generally well accepted as best practices for determining authorship on scholarly work. An individual claiming authorship or being designated as an author on a creative output (e.g., manuscript or book chapter) should meet all the following criteria:

All identified authors are accountable for the study's integrity and the publication's accuracy. Authors should only submit original work. Most journals require that the work not be submitted simultaneously to another journal for consideration. Only when an article has been rejected by or withdrawn from consideration in one journal may it be submitted elsewhere. Authors should avoid fragmentary publication. Dividing research findings into the smallest publishable units might increase an investigator's total number of publications but works against the interests of science. Authors should avoid duplicate publication. Publication of data in more than one journal gives the findings more visibility, but it may also mislead readers into believing that more work has been done in the field than really has been. Finally, authors should avoid ghost and guest, gift, or honorary authorship. A ghost author is a person who has made a substantial contribution to the research or writing of a manuscript but is not named as an author. This could constitute plagiarism. A guest, gift or honorary author is a senior faculty member or researcher who is included on the byline to increase the likelihood of paper acceptance and publication (see L. A. Harvey, Spinal Cord (2018) 56:91). Authors should be fully transparent about who contributed to the work and in what capacity for authorship.

Wiley has a comprehensive set of guidelines on publishing ethics (revised in 2014). The purpose for these guidelines is to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a summary of best practice guidance with respect to research integrity and publishing ethics from leading organizations around the world. The guidelines on authorship, plagiarism, peer review, etc. are written for researchers, in their various roles as editors, authors and peer reviewers; societies; librarians; funders; corporations; publishers; and journalists. I encourage all to read over these guidelines as they serve as good education refreshers for aspects of RECR.

https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html

Greg M. Swain

Editor-in-Chief