Authorship, peer review and scientific communication

Concept

Being an author requires meeting four criteria; peer review filters articles, and predatory journals only pretend to.

Updated Nov 13, 2026

Key points

The four authorship criteria: substantial contribution to design or data; drafting or critical revision; approval of the final version; and accountability for the whole work.
Anyone meeting fewer than four criteria goes in the acknowledgements; obtaining funding, general supervision or administrative support alone do not qualify.
Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts of interest and do not use the ideas; the editor decides and should offer an appeals process.
Signs of a predatory journal: accepts almost everything, charges fees revealed after acceptance, promises a fast review it does not do, imitates well-known journal names.
Ghost authorship (someone wrote it and is not listed) and honorary authorship (someone is listed who did not contribute) breach integrity.
Retractions correct the scientific record when there are serious errors or misconduct.

What it is

Authorship brings credit and responsibility: according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), an author must meet all four criteria at once. Peer review is the confidential assessment of a manuscript by experts who advise the editor, who decides. Predatory journals charge to publish almost anything and claim a review they do not perform; after publication, readers keep assessing through letters, corrections and retractions.

Worked example

Scenario (made up): a project has 7 contributors, and the 4 authorship criteria are checked for each one.
4 contributors designed or analysed, drafted or revised, approved the final version and are accountable for the work: they are authors.
2 collected data but did not revise the manuscript or approve the final version: they go in the acknowledgements unless they complete the criteria.
1, the head of department, only obtained the funding: acknowledgements.
Result: 4 of 7 (≈ 57 %) are authors; the other 3 are thanked with their contribution described.
Review: the manuscript goes to 2 reviewers; they ask for major revisions; a point-by-point reply follows and it is accepted at day 94.
Warning: another ‘journal’ had offered acceptance within 48 hours with a fee revealed only after acceptance: signs of a predatory journal.
Reading: applying the criteria before writing prevents disputes, and real peer review takes weeks, not hours.

Roles in scientific communication

Actor	Main responsibility
Authors	Meet the authorship criteria, declare conflicts and choose a journal with integrity
Corresponding author	Communicate with the journal through submission, review and publication
Editor	Choose reviewers, decide on scientific grounds and publish how review works
Reviewers	Assess confidentially, promptly and respectfully, and declare conflicts
Readers	Read critically, write letters and flag errors after publication

Markers

ICMJE
Four criteria
Peer review
Predatory journal
Retraction

In practice

Agree on authorship order and criteria at the start of the project and review them before submission.
Before submitting to a journal, check its indexing, review process, fees and track record.
When reviewing for a journal, treat the manuscript as confidential and comment to improve it, not to attack it.

Common pitfalls

Listing as an author someone who only provided money, space or permission.
Leaving out the person who wrote the article (ghost authorship).
Sharing or using a manuscript received for review.
Citing articles from predatory journals as if they had been reviewed.

Test yourself

Think of the answer, then tap the question to see it.

What are the ICMJE's four authorship criteria?

Substantial contribution to conception or design or to the data; drafting or critical revision; approval of the final version; and agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Can someone who only obtained the funding be an author?

No; obtaining funding, general supervision or administrative support alone do not justify authorship; that person goes in the acknowledgements.

What are two duties of a peer reviewer?

Keep the manuscript confidential and declare conflicts of interest (stepping aside if there is one); also, do not use the authors' ideas and comment respectfully.

Which signs suggest a predatory journal?

It accepts almost everything, promises a very fast review it does not perform, charges fees revealed after acceptance, imitates known journal names or falsely claims to follow ICMJE recommendations.

Add to my cards (4)

Connections

← All of epidemiology

Educational content on epidemiological and statistical methods; the examples use made-up numbers to teach the calculation. Not a clinical or legal guide: current Colombian rules are in the official sources.

Sources: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2026); C. Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2026); ICMJE | Recommendations | Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2026).

Spotted a mistake?We are always improving for the community. Tell us what is wrong and our team will review it.Report a mistake

Representative model, for educational purposes only.