Ghost, Guest, Gift Authorship in a Submitted Manuscript | eSupport for Research |2022|Dr. Akash Bhoi

Authorship problems—specifically “ghost,” “guest,” and “gift” authorship—can trigger a journal to pause peer review, demand documentation, and force formal changes before a manuscript moves forward. The core workflow starts after submission: if an editor or associate editor suspects authorship irregularities, the peer review process is suspended while the journal checks the acknowledgement section and the author-declaration materials against its authorship policies.

When initial checks raise questions, the journal contacts the corresponding author with the relevant authorship guidelines and requests a detailed explanation. The corresponding author may be asked to collect and submit author-by-author contribution information—who drafted the manuscript, who analyzed data, who evaluated the work, who worked on software, who handled methodology/“metrology” components, and who reviewed the manuscript. If the response is satisfactory, the journal resumes peer review or proceeds toward publication. If doubts remain, the journal may re-contact authors, verify affiliations (including by checking sources such as Medline and Google), and seek clarification about whether any contributors were omitted or whether anyone was included without meeting authorship criteria.

The transcript lays out two key outcomes once specific authorship issues are identified. In a “ghost authorship” scenario, the contributor list lacks someone who should be credited—such as a person who analyzed data or prepared the first draft. The journal then asks for that missing contributor to be added as an author. This requires written agreement from all authors and a revised manuscript, with letters that explicitly reference the journal’s authorship policy (or relevant standards such as ICMJE criteria). If a senior author is implicated and concerns persist, the transcript notes that the matter may escalate to institutional reporting—potentially by copying the department head or research governance—so authors should treat the process carefully.

In a “guest” or “gift authorship” scenario, the author list includes names that do not satisfy authorship criteria. The journal’s remedy is to remove those individuals from the author list and place their contributions in the acknowledgements instead. As with ghost authorship, the journal seeks formal written agreement and declarations from all authors explaining what changed and why the revision aligns with policy.

After these disputes are resolved, the journal can continue with peer review or publication. The transcript also emphasizes that final handling of disputes remains at the journal’s discretion, including how it communicates policy requirements and how it processes the manuscript once authorship concerns are cleared. The practical takeaway is straightforward: journals demand transparent, contribution-based authorship documentation, and unresolved discrepancies can halt the publication timeline until corrected through policy-compliant, written author consensus.