Policy Title: Authorship and Publication of Results
Policy Area: Research Policy
Owner: Policy Office
Approved by: UM6P President
Effective Date: December 22, 2023
RELATED DOCUMENTS
Intellectual Property Policy; Research Integrity Policy; Review of Alleged Research Misconduct Procedure; Research Data Management Policy.
SECTION 1: POLICY STATEMENT
1.1. University Mohammed VI Polytechnic (UM6P) encourages and promotes the dissemination of knowledge through the publication of research results.
1.2. The faculty and students of UM6P respect the intellectual property and proprietary knowledge of entities sponsoring their research when publishing their research results.
SECTION 2: SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
2.1. This policy applies to all research projects and sponsored research programs at UM6P and to external parties involved in cooperative and contractual relations with UM6P that focus on research, scholarship, and creative activity.
SECTION 3: PURPOSE
3.1. In many disciplines the complexity in the conduct of research is such that it can become difficult to determine responsibility of authorship, creating a need for clarification of how the allocation of responsibility and credit for scholarly work should occur. For example, large laboratories may be under the general directorship of one or two individuals but often include relatively independent work being performed by groups of shifting composition. These circumstances often produce exciting developments, but at the same time they pose novel problems for the allocation of credit and responsibility. It is thus important to establish, at a minimum, an expression of commonly held principles around authorship. Through this policy document UM6P seeks to set a framework for the publication of research results that ensures unhindered ability of faculty and researchers to publish their findings through academic journals, conferences, and other media formats. It presents general principles and criteria to be used to determine appropriate authorship and the process to follow in resolving authorship disputes.
SECTION 4: DEFINITIONS
The following definition(s) apply to this policy document:
4.1. Creator: The collaborator, the student, the administrative or support staff or any natural person, such as a visiting professor/researcher who works or carries out research within the university and who meets the legal requirements of Creator. The term “Creator” includes the creators of industrial property titles and creations protected by copyright.
4.2. Intellectual Property: All assets, technical data, inventions, designs and models, methods, products, improvements, processes, results, discoveries, varieties, and descendants whether or not likely to benefit from legal protection, including any know-how, demonstrations, plans, specifications, prototypes, strains, topographies, geographical indications, models, software including source and object codes, and reports. IP also includes trademarks and certification marks, internet domain names, logos, symbols, trade dress, trade names, copyrights, patents, applications patents, patent extensions, applications or computer programs designed, developed, or put into practice, and which are not in the public domain.
4.3. Intellectual Property Rights: The legally enforceable rights associated with the intangible aspects of intellectual property.
4.4. Publication: The dissemination of research results in any written or otherwise documented format.
4.5. Research Results: All data, material, models, drawings, plans, software, inventions, discoveries, products, improvements, processes, specifications, prototypes and information resulting from a research project or the provision of services. Without limiting the scope of the above, the term “Results” also refers to results which are patentable and those which are not patentable.
4.6. Scholarly Work: Scholarly work may add to the existing body of fundamental scientific knowledge. Although a scholarly work may be published on a web site, the web site itself is not a scholarly work.
4.7. Traditional Works of Scholarship: Copyrighted scholarly and creative works. Examples of Traditional Works of Scholarship include scholarly publications, journal articles, research bulletins, monographs, books, play scripts, theatrical productions, poems, works of music and art, instructional materials in print or electronic format.
SECTION 5: PROVISIONS AND GUIDELINES
Authorship Criteria
5.1. Scientific and scholarly publications, defined as articles, abstracts, presentations at professional meetings, and grant applications, provide the main vehicle to disseminate findings, thoughts, and analysis to the scientific, academic, and lay communities. For academic activities to contribute to the advancement of knowledge, they must be published in sufficient detail and accuracy to enable others to understand and replicate the results. For the authors of such work, successful publication improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion while enhancing scientific and scholarly achievement.
5.2. Maintaining scientific credibility depends on complete and correct authorship, as well as accuracy in reporting the research results. To support a culture of integrity and trust, researchers must not take credit for the published or unpublished works of others or refer to such work without proper attribution and/or permission (i.e., engage in plagiarism). This plagiarism standard applies to all forms of publications, including, but not limited to the following: articles, papers, reports, books, presentations, posters, abstracts, and grant applications.
5.3. The process of determining authorship should be fluid and begin very early in a collaboration project where publication/s are likely to occur. Whenever possible, authorship discussions should be conducted in a transparent manner and through face-to-face meetings with all potential authors. Authorship agreements may be revisited as a project develops, as circumstances can change before completion. Communication about discussions should be shared with all potential authors.
5.4. UM6P recognizes that definitions of authorship differ among the various scientific disciplines and professional journals, as do standards for “substantial” and “scholarly effort.”
5.5. An author is generally considered to be an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions to a scientific investigation. It is expected that authorship will be agreed upon before initiation of a project and submission of the resulting manuscript(s). In cases of multiple authors, it is the responsibility of the senior author to ensure that all authors have an opportunity to participate in the preparation of the manuscript and to approve it before submission. All authors should meet the following four (4) criteria:
5.5.1. Contribute significantly to the conception, design, execution, and/or in the analysis and interpretation of data;
5.5.2. Participate in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the manuscript for intellectual content;
5.5.3. Approve the version of the manuscript to be published; and
5.5.4. Be able to explain and defend in public or scholarly settings those portions of the study for which he or she was directly responsible.
5.6. Contribution of knowledge, where justified, including local knowledge may also be considered as a criterion for inclusion as an author.
5.7. University Mohammed VI Polytechnic (UM6P) authors must acknowledge UM6P affiliation in all forms of publication where employer affiliation is required or common practice.
5.8. All authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing to the other authors any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that might bias their work.
Co-authors
5.9. All co-authors of a publication are responsible for providing consent to authorship prior to submission. By providing consent to authorship, co-authors are acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript, including the validity and integrity of the manuscript.
5.9.1. Students, Fellows, and Research Associates All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship as defined in Section 5.5 of this policy document. Faculty should be aware of their responsibility to ensure that students, postdoctoral fellows, and other research associates who participate substantively in the preparation of manuscripts are recognized as authors in publications covering the results of research in which they were active participants.
5.9.2. Acknowledgments Individuals who have made some contribution to the publication, but who do not meet the criteria for authorship (e.g., staff, editorial assistants, specialized writers, or other individuals) can provide a valuable contribution to the writing and editing of publications. Since those contributions do not meet the criteria for authorship under this policy, those individuals should be listed in an acknowledgment and/or contributorship section of the work.
5.9.3. UM6P recognizes that ChatGPT, large language models (LLMs), and other Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools offer valuable support for academic research. Professors, researchers, and students are expected to exercise caution when using such tools and ensure that the use of these tools is compliant with the Authorship and Research Integrity polices of the UM6P. The researcher should be aware of the limitations and potential biases of different models.
5.9.4. AI tools do not qualify to meet the criteria for authorship. It is expected, however, that authors be transparent as to any AI tools used in the research or for authoring of a publication, including the version number and a list of research activity done by the AI tool. The citation of the AI must be in line with the requirements of the journal and discipline.
Multi-Authored Research Papers
5.10. Multi-investigator research teams differ significantly from the individual faculty/graduate student research teams that are often the norm at UM6P. In particular, the former often consist of colleagues from different disciplines who perform different, specialized functions. It is possible for participants to have little knowledge or understanding of parts of the work performed by their colleagues. Sometimes, there is no single person who understands all the research. The following guidelines apply for scholarly manuscripts emanating from multi-investigator research:
5.10.1. Principal Investigators and senior faculty have special responsibilities to assure the overall cohesiveness and validity of the publications on which they appear as coauthors;
5.10.2. Authors in a group effort have a shared responsibility for the published result and should have the opportunity to review sample preparation procedures and data, as well as data acquisition and analysis procedures;
5.10.3. Each author in a group effort should have access to the manuscript prior to its being submitted for publication and should agree to his or her inclusion as a coauthor. All the participants in the program should know that the paper is being prepared for publication; and
5.10.4. Early in the project, each research group should define appropriate practices for the maintenance of data (see Research Data Management policy).
Unacceptable Authorship
5.11. An administrative relationship, acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of a research group alone does not constitute eligibility for authorship. Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are also inconsistent with the definition of authorship in this policy document and are unacceptable.
5.11.1. Guest (honorary, courtesy, or prestige) authorship is defined as granting authorship out of appreciation or respect for an individual, or in the belief that expert standing of the guest will increase the likelihood of publication, credibility, or status of the work.
5.11.2. Gift authorship is that which is offered out of a sense of obligation, as tribute, due to dependence, or in the hopes of an anticipated benefit.
5.11.3. Ghost authorship is an act of omission, whereby mention of a significant contributor is intentionally absent. Ghostwriters can be an example when the writing itself is of such value that it warrants credit, either as an author or by another form of acknowledgement.
Authorship Practices to Avoid
5.12. Duplicate Publication (sometimes called Self-plagiarism) – Republishing parts of your own work, such as previously published data sets or parts of previously written work without properly attributing the prior work may result in disciplinary action (see Research Integrity Policy and Procedures for Review of Alleged Research Misconduct).
5.13. Salami Publication – The slicing of data collected during a single research study into different pieces that form the basis of individual published manuscripts in the same or different journals. The practice is not appropriate when it increases the number of publications intentionally at the expense of the reader.
5.14. Premature Public Statements – Publicly announcing research results prior to peer-review runs the risk of misleading the public and undermining the credibility of research institutions and individual scientists when later peer-review finds significant criticism.
Embargo
5.15. Embargo There are possible situations in which a researcher could consider restricting access to his/her work for a set amount of time. The two most common cases for which an embargo may occur are:
5.15.1. Contractual, where a contract with a company, funding agency or sponsor requires that the research conducted must remain confidential for a specified period of time;
5.15.2. Patent Pending, where a patent application has been filed by the researcher, or by another on the researcher’s behalf, relating to a discovery or novel method.
Disputes Over Authorship
5.16. In general, authorship issues and related matters should be freely discussed and decided upon early during the research process and prior to writing the manuscript. However, agreements relating to authorship may need to be changed during the collection of data and preparation of the manuscript. Possible disagreements include interpretation of the criteria for authorship, order of authors, editorial control of content and focus of the manuscript, selection of journal or other publication media, and choice of responsible author.
5.17. Disagreements between or among authors should be resolved in a collegial manner by the lead author in consultation with the other author(s), relevant research personnel, and any other individual who claims authorship. Generally, the lead author has the primary responsibility for making decisions on authorship and other matters related to the publication of manuscripts.
5.18. When matters of authorship and related issues cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner by the lead author, other author(s), research personnel, and other individuals who claim authorship, the lead author and/or other author(s)/research personnel should present their controversy in writing to the head of department. The manuscript in question should not be submitted for publication before these issues are resolved. The head of department should meet with the individuals involved in the dispute, collect and retain appropriate information, and make a recommendation in writing. When the authorship dispute involves the chair, or if the dispute involves more than one department, then a neutral mediator will be appointed by the president (or designee).
5.19. If a satisfactory resolution is not achieved by the head of department or by a neutral mediator, then the president /designee will appoint three senior faculty members to investigate the dispute. The review group will not include individuals with personal responsibility for the research but should include faculty members with unique qualifications relative to the dispute in question (i.e., research expertise, training of graduate students, experience with clinical trials, active peer-reviewed research, etc.). In addition, the Research Integrity Officer will serve as an ad hoc member.
5.20. If a dispute between investigators from multiple research centers arises, the solution to the dispute should arise from within the organizational structure of the multi-center study. If a dispute cannot be resolved, the principle of academic freedom generally indicates that an investigator has the right to present those data for which he/she is contract custodian. However, this right should be tempered by the concept of collegial collaboration. It is unacceptable for an investigator to publish or present study findings before the total group of study investigators has had a reasonable opportunity to do so.
SECTION 6: RESPONSIBILITIES
6.1. The Policy Office, in collaboration with department heads and chairs, is responsible for ensuring compliance with this policy.
6.2. The Policy Office prepares and makes available for the academic community, including by posting it on the UM6P internal web portal, detailed guidelines and procedures related to this policy document.
6.3. All provisions and guidelines contained in this policy document operate in accordance with the university’s approved Delegation of Authority.
SECTION 7: REVIEW AND MONITORING STATEMENT
7.1. This policy document is reviewed once every four (4) years, or more frequently when requested by the president or subsequent to published changes to governing regulations or accreditation requirements.