Should staff who contributed to data analysis but do not meet authorship criteria be listed as coauthors?

In the context of medical publishing, the correct approach is to acknowledge contributions made by those who do not meet authorship criteria, rather than including them as coauthors. Authorship is typically reserved for individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research study.

The individuals who contributed to data analysis, while valuable to the research, may not have satisfied all criteria necessary for authorship. These criteria often include involvement in drafting the manuscript or final approval of the version to be published.

Acknowledgment is a formal way to recognize contributions that do not warrant authorship. This distinction maintains the integrity of authorship and ensures that only those who meet the defined criteria are listed as coauthors. Recognizing contributions via acknowledgment also aligns with ethical standards in publication, fostering transparency about the roles of various contributors.

In contrast, including those who do not meet authorship criteria as coauthors would misrepresent their contribution and could lead to ethical concerns. Thus, acknowledging their efforts rather than listing them as authors promotes clarity and accuracy in authorship practices.