Authorship · Reference
Types of authorship in research
Research authorship comes in several recognised types — from legitimate forms such as co-authorship, corresponding authorship and group authorship to problematic forms such as guest, ghost and gift authorship. Understanding the typology helps researchers, editors and institutions identify appropriate attribution and recognise misconduct.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Legitimate types of authorship
Qualified or legitimate authorship is the baseline: an individual who has met all relevant authorship criteria — typically the ICMJE's four — is named as an author. This is the only form of authorship that is ethically unproblematic. Variations on legitimate authorship include co-authorship (two or more qualifying authors), corresponding authorship (the author who manages journal communications), first authorship (the primary contributor, usually listed first in the byline in experimental sciences), senior authorship (the most experienced researcher, usually listed last), shared first authorship (co-first authors who contributed equally), and group or collaborative authorship (attribution to a named consortium or team).
These forms differ in their byline conventions and career signals, but all rest on the same foundation: each named individual, or the identified accountable members of a named group, meets the authorship criteria.
Problematic types: guest, ghost and gift
The three "G" types of problematic authorship are among the most discussed in research integrity. Ghost authorship conceals a qualifying contributor — their name does not appear even though they made a substantial contribution (e.g., a medical writer who drafted the manuscript). Gift authorship adds a name as a courtesy or favour — the person is listed even though they did not make a qualifying contribution (e.g., a senior colleague added out of deference). Guest authorship is a synonym for gift authorship. All three undermine the principle that the byline is a reliable record of who is intellectually accountable for the work.
Coercive authorship
Coercive authorship — sometimes called pressured authorship — is when a researcher with power over another (a supervisor over a student, a department head over a junior faculty member) expects or demands to be included as an author without making a qualifying contribution, with an implicit or explicit threat that refusing will have professional consequences. It is a form of gift authorship with a power-dynamic component. COPE and many institutional research-integrity frameworks recognise it as a distinct pattern requiring specific guidance and reporting mechanisms.
How CRediT helps disambiguate contribution type
The CASRAI-originated CRediT taxonomy, standardised as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 by NISO, does not resolve all authorship classification questions, but it significantly helps. By assigning each person a specific role — Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing — original draft, and so on — CRediT makes it possible to see whether a named author actually performed any of the 14 defined functions. Ghost authors would need to be assigned roles (most commonly Writing — original draft) that are visible in the record; gift authors would have few or no roles to assign. The combination of authorship criteria and CRediT statements is the most robust current framework for appropriate attribution.
Key facts
At a glance
- Legitimate types: individual (qualified), co-authorship, corresponding, first, senior, shared first, group
- Problematic types: ghost (hidden contributor), gift/guest (added without qualifying contribution), coercive
- All legitimate types: rest on the authorship criteria being met by each named individual or accountable group member
- Ghost authorship: contributor present but unnamed — opposite of gift
- Coercive authorship: gift authorship enabled by power imbalance — a distinct pattern
- CRediT: 14 defined roles make the presence or absence of real contribution visible
- Standard: ICMJE criteria decide who qualifies; CRediT records what each person did
Common questions
FAQ
What are the types of authorship in research?+
Legitimate types include co-authorship, corresponding authorship, first authorship, senior authorship, shared first authorship and group authorship. Problematic types include ghost authorship (hiding a contributor), gift/guest authorship (adding a non-contributor), and coercive authorship (demanded through power imbalance).
What is coercive authorship?+
Coercive authorship is when a person in a position of power — a supervisor, department head or senior colleague — expects or demands authorship without making a qualifying contribution, implicitly or explicitly threatening professional consequences for refusal.
What is the difference between ghost and gift authorship?+
Ghost authorship hides a person who contributed and should be named. Gift authorship adds a person who did not contribute and should not be named. They are opposites — both undermine the reliability of the byline.
How does CRediT help identify the type of authorship?+
CRediT requires each named person to be assigned specific roles from a controlled vocabulary of 14. A gift or guest author will have few or no roles to assign; a ghost author's roles (especially Writing — original draft) will be missing from the record. This makes improper attribution more visible.
