On Co-Authorship, the Vancouver Protocol, and the Value of True Contribution

In the world of academic publishing, co-authorship should be earned, not gifted. The Vancouver Protocol — from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) — clearly outlines that to be listed as an author, one must contribute meaningfully to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of a study. In short: no free dinners in serious research.

Yet “gift authorships” still happen — names added out of courtesy, politics, or desperation. In today’s “citations game,” we must be conscious of who we partner with. Tell me who your friends are, and I will tell you who you are. Academic collaborations should be grounded in shared commitment to rigor and integrity. As I often joke, birds of the same feathers are not always the same birds — not all collaborators help you fly higher.

I often find it amusing when I see five authors on an 8,000-word journal article. I quickly do my math: how much could each one have truly contributed? Meaningful co-authorship demands real intellectual work, not just dividing the word count like a pizza.

Over the years, I have been approached by professors — some under pressure to “publish or perish” — asking me for “help” that really meant offering them undeserved authorship. While I understand their struggles, I politely decline. Integrity demands that authorship be based on contribution, not favors.

These days, I work mostly on my own, supported by a team of wonderful research assistants and colleagues behind the scenes. Authorship, however, is reserved only for those who genuinely earn their place. In research — as in life — authenticity, responsibility, and respect must come first. If you want your name on the work, bring something to the table.