COPE's Ghost/Guest/Gift Authorship Flowchart

When a peer reviewer, editor, or reader raises a suspicion of ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a manuscript that has already been submitted, COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) publishes a specific procedural tool for handling it: the flowchart ‘Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript’ (COPE Council, version 1: 2006, DOI 10.24318/cope.2019.2.18). This guide walks through what that flowchart actually instructs an editor to do, in order, and what each of its four possible outcomes leads to. It does not re-explain what ghost, guest, and gift authorship mean — for that, see CASRAI’s Types of Authorship overview and the Ghost vs. Gift Authorship comparison.

What triggers the process

COPE’s companion infographic, ‘How to recognise potential authorship problems’ (DOI 10.24318/cope.2019.2.22, November 2018), lists the concrete signs that typically prompt an editor to open an authorship investigation on a submitted manuscript. None of these is proof on its own — COPE explicitly notes several have innocent explanations — but each is a documented reason to look closer:

The corresponding author seems unable to respond to reviewers’ comments.
An ‘impossibly prolific’ author, or a head of department listed as senior author on work they may not have been closely involved in.
An industry-funded study with no authors from the sponsor company — may be legitimate, but reviewing the original protocol can help determine the sponsor employees’ actual role.
An unfeasibly long or short author list for the type of work — for example, a simple case report with a dozen authors, or a randomised trial with a single author.
A name on the author list from a research area unrelated to the paper’s subject — may indicate guest authorship.
Someone thanked in the acknowledgements without a specific stated contribution.
Authorship changes introduced without notification during revision stages, or tracked-changes history showing authors added or removed.
Language quality in the manuscript not matching the cover letter, or evidence the manuscript was drafted or revised by someone not on the author list or acknowledged (checkable via Word document properties, track changes, or comment history).
A similarity check showing the submission is derived from a thesis whose original author is not on the author list or acknowledged.
Questionable roles among listed contributors — for example, it isn’t clear that anyone on the list actually drafted the paper or analysed the data.

Step 1: suspend peer review

The flowchart’s first and unconditional instruction, the moment a genuine suspicion is raised, is to suspend peer review. The investigation happens before the manuscript moves any further through the editorial process, not in parallel with it.

Step 2: gather information

With review paused, the editor reviews the acknowledgements section and any authorship declaration already on file, and then — the exact combination depends on the journal’s normal method of collecting author and contributor information — takes one or both of the following actions:

Send the journal’s authorship policy to the corresponding author and request a declaration that every listed author qualifies and that no author has been omitted (if this wasn’t already obtained at submission).
Request information, or further detail, on each individual’s specific contribution. COPE cites research (Marušić et al., 2006, DOI 10.1185/030079906×104885) showing that how this information is collected affects how truthful the answers are — free-text descriptions in each author’s own words tend to produce more accurate, informative responses than tick-box contribution forms.

Step 3: the flowchart’s four possible findings

Based on what comes back, the flowchart routes the case into exactly one of four outcomes:

Authorship role missing → ‘ghost’ author identified

The contributor list doesn’t include anyone who, for instance, analysed the data or prepared the first draft — a substantive role exists with no name attached to it. The recommended action is to suggest the missing author should be added to the list.

Listed author doesn’t meet authorship criteria → ‘guest’ or ‘gift’ author identified

Someone on the byline cannot account for a qualifying contribution. The recommended action is to suggest the guest or gift author should be removed from the byline, or moved into the acknowledgements section instead.

Satisfactory explanation of the author list

The declarations and contribution details resolve the concern — the case closes and the manuscript proceeds.

Doubts remain, or more information is needed

The flowchart directs the editor to try to contact the authors directly — checking Medline or Google for current affiliations and email addresses if needed — and ask about each person’s role, whether anyone has been omitted, and whether they have any concerns about the authorship as listed. This loops back into the information-gathering step rather than ending the process; it is not a fifth, separate outcome.

Step 4: resolving a confirmed ghost or guest/gift finding

Where either a ghost author or a guest/gift author is confirmed, the flowchart specifies the same remediation mechanism for both: get agreement for the authorship change in writing from all authors. COPE is specific about what that letter should contain:

A clear statement of the journal’s own authorship policy, and/or a reference to a published criteria set (COPE names ICMJE as the example).
Optionally, an expression of concern or disappointment that those criteria were not followed.
For senior authors specifically, the flowchart suggests the editor consider copying the letter to the person’s head of department, or whoever is responsible for research governance at their institution — an escalation option, not a mandatory step.

Step 5: proceed, and close the loop institutionally

Once the authorship list is resolved — either because the original explanation was satisfactory or because a correction has been agreed in writing — the flowchart’s terminal instruction is to proceed with review or publication. It closes with one more forward-looking step: review the journal’s own instructions to contributors and submission forms to make sure the guidance is clear enough to help prevent the same problem recurring on a future submission.

What this flowchart does not cover

This flowchart is scoped specifically to a manuscript still under review, before publication. COPE maintains a separate flowchart for authorship concerns raised after a paper is already in print — ‘Request for removal of author after publication’ (DOI 10.24318/cope.2019.2.11) — which is a distinct process with different stakes (a published, citable record versus a submission still under editorial control). It also isn’t the tool for authorship order disagreements between contributors who all genuinely qualify as authors; for that, see CASRAI’s guide to resolving authorship order disputes.

Preventing the problem before submission

COPE’s companion infographic frames prevention around three actions, aimed at journals rather than individual editors handling a live case:

Submit: adopt policies that allow for transparency around who contributed to the submitted work and in what capacity.
Encourage: facilitate awareness of emerging standards, naming ORCID and CRediT specifically.
Behaviour: check submissions for the unusual patterns listed above that may suggest an authorship problem.

A journal that requires a structured, per-author CRediT contribution statement at submission gives editors a documented baseline to check against if a dispute surfaces later — exactly the kind of transparency COPE’s ‘Submit’ recommendation calls for.

Frequently asked questions

What does an editor do first if ghost, guest, or gift authorship is suspected before publication?

Per COPE’s flowchart, the first and unconditional step is to suspend peer review. The editor then reviews the acknowledgements section and authorship declaration already on file, and requests either the journal’s authorship policy with a declaration from the corresponding author, further detail on each individual’s contribution, or both, depending on how the journal normally collects that information.

Can a journal reject or hold up a manuscript over suspected gift authorship?

The flowchart doesn’t end in outright rejection as a standard outcome for a confirmed guest or gift author — the specified remedy is to suggest the ineligible author be removed from the byline or moved to the acknowledgements, with written agreement from all authors, after which the manuscript proceeds. Rejection remains available to an editor as a broader editorial decision, but it isn’t the flowchart’s prescribed resolution for a first-instance authorship-criteria mismatch.

What happens if the corresponding author won’t respond or the explanation isn’t convincing?

The flowchart’s ‘doubts remain / need more information’ branch directs the editor to try to contact the authors directly — checking Medline or Google for current affiliations and emails if needed — and ask about each person’s role, any omitted authors, and any concerns they have about the authorship as listed, feeding back into the information-gathering step rather than resolving the case outright.

Is a ghost author always added back onto the byline once identified?

The flowchart’s recommended action is to suggest the missing author be added to the list, but any change still requires written agreement from all authors, following the journal’s authorship policy or a published criteria set such as ICMJE’s.

Does this flowchart apply once a paper has already been published?

No. It’s scoped to a manuscript still under review. COPE maintains a separate flowchart, ‘Request for removal of author after publication,’ for authorship concerns raised after publication.

Why does COPE recommend copying the correction letter to a senior author’s department head?

It’s offered as a consider-this escalation option specifically for senior authors, not a required step for every case — reflecting that an authorship-criteria failure involving a senior researcher’s position may also be a research-governance matter for their institution, not only an editorial one.

Related CASRAI resources

Primary source: COPE Council, ‘Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript’ and ‘How to recognise potential authorship problems,’ publicationethics.org, both CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Direct access to publicationethics.org returned an access error during research for this page; the flowchart and infographic text above was verified against an institutional mirror hosting the identical COPE-authored PDF (matching DOI, citation, and COPE branding).