“Simple Rules for Editors”? Here is One Rule to Tackle Neglected Problems of Publishing
Thomas C. Erren, Michael Erren · PLoS Computational Biology · 2007
The recent ''Ten Simple Rules for Selecting a Postdoctoral Position'' [1] complemented the Ten Rules for ''Getting Published'' [2], for ''Writing a Grant'' [3], and for ''Reviewers'' [4].Together, they can do a real service for younger or lessexperienced scientists to become recognized appropriately and early in their careers, be it in computational biology or in other scientific fields.We do not know which further ''rules for different audiences are in the making'' [2] but would like to suggest that editors or journals be a candidate audience because they are key vectors for scientific recognition.Moreover, to help editors enforce due recognition of young(er) scientists' work, we propose an Editor Rule for Appropriate Recognition: require authors to make visible who contributed substantially to the submission with ideas and work during (authorship list) or prior to (reference list) the project.Editors, reviewers, and readers will reflexively argue that many journals, including this one, already try to document each author's contributions [1], but we feel that current practice does not suffice.Please note that a majority of young researchers in Europe and in the United States complained that they do not receive appropriate recognition of their research achievements [5,6].Granted, journals discuss on a regular basis how important it is to give credit to authors where it's due, but we are looking at many articles concerned with who is named as author and why and where [7,8] and very few articles addressing consequences for individuals who are unduly omitted from authorship lists [9].In addition, there is some