Authorship abuse is the dark side of collaboration

yes, I think this attitude exist in many places. I think as a part of our respect to the research ethics, we should also respect the publication ethics. In this regard, we have to stick to consensus on the role of the authors and contributors in research according to the vancouver definitions. We should avoid bad practice in the form of either the "gift authorship" or "ghost authorship".

I think this has always been a problem but has been exacerbated by increased competition in part to reduced funding and academic positions. Research and publication ethics go hand in hand. If a person is unethical in research I find it highly improbable that the individual would demonstrate publication ethics and visa versa. The hypocrisy of science is that we preach research ethics to students and post-docs, while duplicitous and self-serving mentors victimized them by either giving or taking undeserved credit. This doesn’t only occur at the training level but also at the junior faculty level. I see all to often principle investigators picking and choosing “winners” by placing certain lab members that played a limited role in the research as first authors at the expense of other more deserving lab members. This ethical issue also occurs at the junior faculty level when they feel pressured to give powerful senior faculty "gift authorship" or "ghost authorship". Universities say that they expect faculty to act professionally and ethically. Most universities only give lip service in supporting the Vancouver Protocol. Although most institutions take research ethics seriously they often fail to intervene in authorship disputes by viewing them as sour grapes. This is the classic “do as I say and not as I do” scenario. It is highly unlikely this will change. What university wants to intervene in an authorship dispute and upset a highly funded PI?