[Durgical](https://durgical.com/en/) › [DurgiPedia](https://durgical.com/en/durgipedia/) › [Epidemiology](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/) › [Research methods](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/areas/research/) › Authorship, peer review and scientific communication

# 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.

## Memory aid

‘Did, wrote, approved, answers for it’: if one of the four is missing, the name goes in the acknowledgements.

## 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)](https://durgical.app/estudiar/?add=/en/epidemiology/authorship-peer-review-and-scientific-communication/)

## Connections

## Related 5

- [The scientific article (IMRAD)](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/the-scientific-article/)
- [Publication bias and the funnel plot](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/publication-bias-and-the-funnel-plot/)
- [Critical appraisal of a paper](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/critical-appraisal-of-a-paper/)
- [Reporting guidelines: CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, STARD](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/reporting-guidelines-consort-strobe-prisma-stard/)
- [Applying for research funding](https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/applying-for-research-funding/)

[← All of epidemiology](https://durgical.com/en/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](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html) (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2026); [C. Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html) (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), 2026); [ICMJE | Recommendations | Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/scientific-misconduct-expressions-of-concern-and-retraction.html) (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.

---
Source: https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/authorship-peer-review-and-scientific-communication/
License: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Cite as: DurgiPedia (durgical.com), https://durgical.com/en/epidemiology/authorship-peer-review-and-scientific-communication/