One of the greatest strengths of academia is that it is built on trust. We trust that research findings are honestly reported, that peer review is conducted fairly, and that those listed as authors on scholarly publications have genuinely contributed to the work. When this trust is compromised, the credibility of research itself is weakened.

As an academic, researcher, and journal editor, I have come to appreciate that one of the least discussed, but most pervasive, ethical challenges in higher education is the culture of authorship entitlement. It is a subject many researchers discuss privately but hesitate to address publicly because of its sensitivity. Yet, if we are serious about strengthening research integrity, it is a conversation we can no longer avoid.

Across many universities, there exists an unwritten expectation that certain faculty members should be included as co-authors on research papers, not because they made substantial intellectual contributions, but because of their seniority, administrative position, supervisory role, or influence within the institution. More troubling is that when researchers respectfully decline such requests, they may be viewed as disrespectful, ungrateful, or even hostile.

The unfortunate reality is that, in some academic environments, saying "no" to unethical authorship can come at a professional cost.

This should concern all of us.

Authorship is one of the highest forms of academic recognition. It is not merely about receiving credit; it is also about accepting responsibility. Every author is accountable for the integrity of the research and should be able to defend the study's design, methodology, findings, and conclusions. For this reason, internationally recognised authorship guidelines consistently emphasise that authorship must be based on substantial intellectual contribution rather than academic rank or institutional authority.

Unfortunately, practice does not always reflect principle.

As an editor handling manuscripts from researchers across different countries and disciplines, I have observed that authorship disputes are among the most common ethical issues encountered during the publication process. Many arise not because researchers disagree about scientific ideas but because expectations surrounding authorship were never clearly defined. In some cases, names appear on manuscripts despite minimal involvement. In others, deserving contributors are omitted altogether. Both situations undermine the credibility of scholarly publishing.

The pressure to accumulate publications undoubtedly contributes to this problem. Promotion systems in many universities continue to place considerable emphasis on publication numbers. While research productivity is important, an excessive focus on quantity can unintentionally create incentives for honorary or gift authorship. When publications become academic currency, some individuals begin to view every research project within their environment as an opportunity to increase their publication record.

However, the issue extends beyond promotion criteria.

Power dynamics often shape authorship decisions in ways that are rarely acknowledged. Early-career academics and postgraduate students frequently depend on senior colleagues for mentorship, promotion recommendations, access to research resources, grant opportunities, or institutional support. Under such circumstances, refusing an inappropriate authorship request is seldom an easy decision. Many researchers comply, not because they believe it is ethically justified, but because they fear damaging relationships that may influence their future careers.

This creates a culture where ethical authorship becomes the exception rather than the norm.

It is important to distinguish between mentorship and authorship. Good mentors deserve recognition and appreciation. They guide younger researchers, challenge their thinking, open doors to opportunities, and contribute significantly to academic development. Yet mentorship alone does not automatically qualify someone for authorship. Likewise, holding an administrative office, facilitating access to data, securing funding, or offering general advice, while valuable contributions, do not necessarily satisfy accepted authorship criteria. Such contributions are more appropriately recognised through acknowledgements unless accompanied by substantial intellectual involvement in the research itself.

Some may argue that these practices have existed for decades and have become part of academic culture. That may well be true. But longevity does not make an unethical practice acceptable. Many traditions within academia have evolved over time in response to changing expectations of transparency, accountability, and research integrity. Authorship practices should evolve as well.

The solution is not confrontation but transparency.

Research teams should discuss authorship expectations at the beginning of every project rather than after the manuscript has been completed. Universities should establish clear institutional policies aligned with internationally accepted ethical standards and provide regular training on responsible research conduct. Promotion and appointment systems should recognise not only research output but also research integrity, mentorship, innovation, and scholarly leadership.

Senior academics also have an important leadership responsibility. One of the most powerful examples an experienced scholar can set is to decline authorship when it has not been earned. Such a decision demonstrates confidence, integrity, and respect for the next generation of researchers. Leadership is measured not by the number of publications carrying one's name but by the number of scholars one has empowered to succeed ethically and independently.

Ultimately, this discussion is not about denying anyone recognition. It is about ensuring that recognition is deserved.

Every author listed on a publication sends a message to the scholarly community: I contributed substantially to this work, and I stand behind its findings. If that statement is no longer true, authorship loses its meaning.

The future of higher education depends not only on producing more research but on producing research that is credible, transparent, and ethically conducted. Universities seeking global relevance must foster cultures where integrity is valued more highly than hierarchy, and where contribution, not position, determines authorship.

The names on a research paper should tell the story of who created the knowledge, not who held the highest office.

That is not merely good publication practice.

It is the foundation of academic integrity.

Prof. Kofi Agyekum is an Associate Professor of Building Performance and Sustainability at the Department of Construction Technology and Management at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi (KNUST), Ghana. He serves as an Associate Editor for several international journals and has edited and reviewed hundreds of manuscripts across the built environment and sustainability disciplines. His research interests include research integrity, scholarly publishing, sustainability, and construction innovation.

Author's Declaration

This opinion piece reflects the author's views and professional experience. The drafting and language refinement of the manuscript were assisted by ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence language model developed by OpenAI. The author reviewed, edited, and takes full responsibility for the content, interpretations, and conclusions presented.