In scientific publishing, authorship is often seen as a title something reserved for investigators or key opinion leaders.
But here’s a question worth asking:
Is authorship about designation… or contribution?
According to the ICMJE Recommendations, authorship is not about your job title it’s about your intellectual ownership of the work.
This challenges a long-standing misconception:
Medical writers should not be authors.
In reality, medical writers can and should be authors if they meet the required criteria.
Authorship is earned when all four criteria are met:
Significant intellectual contribution to the work
Drafting or critically revising the manuscript
Final approval of the version to be published
Accountability for the accuracy and integrity of the content
If even one of these is missing, authorship may not be appropriate.
But that doesn’t mean invisibility.
When medical writers contribute without meeting all criteria, transparent acknowledgment is essential
not just as a courtesy, but as an ethical responsibility.
Because failing to acknowledge contributions leads to a deeper issue:
Ghostwriting one of the most serious ethical concerns in medical publishing
A shift in perspective
Instead of asking:
“Should medical writers be authors?”
We should be asking:
“Did they contribute intellectually and take responsibility for the work?”
Because ethical authorship is not about hierarchy
it’s about accountability, transparency, and trust.
Let’s discuss:
Do you think medical writers are still under-recognized in authorship decisions even when they meet the criteria?
MBH/AB