Does having general supervision of the research group justify authorship?

The principle of authorship in scientific research is based on specific criteria that are generally recognized in the field. These criteria often include substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or drafting or revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.

In the context of the question, having general supervision of the research group alone does not meet these criteria for authorship. General supervision may indicate oversight or management responsibilities, but it does not typically involve the direct intellectual contribution that is necessary to warrant authorship. Authorship should reflect an individual's significant input into the research process—engagement that leads to the scholarly work being produced.

In contrast, options suggesting that authorship could be granted if combined with data collection or financial support introduce additional considerations that, while important, do not negate the fundamental requirement that authorship reflects meaningful contribution to the creation of the research work itself. Thus, simply having a supervisory role without active involvement in the research output is insufficient for authorship.