Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multiauthored papers

TL;DR

This paper examines the ethical implications of high-end language editing services in scientific publishing, especially considering their potential to meet authorship criteria amid multi-author collaborations and evolving standards.

Contribution

It highlights the need to reconsider authorship guidelines in light of extensive editing services and the collaborative nature of modern scientific writing.

Findings

High-end editing services may qualify for authorship under current guidelines.

Internet collaboration enables multiple iterations, effectively co-writing papers.

The trend towards multi-authored papers lowers the threshold for authorship eligibility.

Abstract

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between authors and the editing service, so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, 'editing services' often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by 'editing services' should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end 'editing services'. In an increasingly international job market, recognizing this problem might prove progressively more important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions