A case series of 89 patients with a relatively rare condition was accepted for publication by the journal following due process through the peer-review system. The paper was published online within days of being accepted. A few days later the editor of the journal received an email from a professor (Professor X) from the same country from which the paper was submitted to say that one of the cases was "his case" and that he wanted the case and the clinical photograph of his patient to be withdrawn from the paper; alternatively, he requested being made a coauthor on the paper.
The editor circulated the letter from Professor X to the publisher, the editor-elect and the editorial office. It was decided that the editor should contact the corresponding author to ask them to consider this approach and to give their response. The letter to the corresponding author included the name of the professor who had written, and the exact details of the complaint and the two possible outcomes he was requesting (withdrawal of his case or his inclusion as a coauthor). The editor went on to say "If the patient is indeed Professor X's and he (Professor X) meets the authorship criteria (as per the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJEhttp://www.icmje.org/））我们仍然可以，如果所有的共同主持人都同意，请将他作为共同悼念。如果他不符合作者标准，那么就可以提供确认。“
编辑继续突出ICMJE标准，如下所示：（1）对受孕和设计或收购数据或数据分析和解释的实质性贡献;（2）起草这篇文章或批判性地修订重要智力内容;（3）最终批准发布版本。作者应符合第1,2和3条的条件。
此外，编辑向X教授发送了一封电子邮件，说他已联系了作者的意见，与此同时，本文已被举行（仅限于此），直到此事已得到解决。
编辑器还通过电子邮件发送了发布者，请求纸张“被拉”，直到问题排序。出版商通过说，不可能简单地“拉”纸质，并需要留在网上。
A few days later the first author replied to the editor of the journal as follows: "Actually, Professor X provided the picture and clinical data regarding this patient and I should have included him as coauthor. It was my mistake." This explanation was accepted by the editor and a revised version of the manuscript and authorship consent was submitted.
（评论：期刊不需要撰写文件的共同宣称他们所做的旨在作为共同主持所做的。）
很难相信，X教授将根据期刊的信息满足ICMJE作者标准。尽管如此，他和所有同轴士签署了新的作者宣言形式和版权。
对应对论坛的问题
（1）是期刊适合该问题的答复和程序吗？
（2）如果没有，期刊和编辑团队如何表现得不同？
（3）COPE论坛建议，期刊试图收集更多信息，以便在将问题传递给本文的作者之前，收集有关的更多信息，以删除作者对稿件的贡献？
论坛同意这是一个困难的案例，在这种情况下，并不总是容易知道该怎么做。一些论坛成员将不同的情况不同，大多数论坛同意X教授没有资格获得作者。
一种观点是,这是一个礼物authorship. Some argued that Professor X only partially fulfilled condition (1) of the ICMJE criteria and hence should not have been listed as an author. People who contribute patients or data do not automatically qualify as authors. In this case, perhaps the person could have been put in the acknowledgement section for his contribution of the specific patient data rather than included as an author. The editor should have stood firm and refused to allow Professor X’s inclusion as an author. This also raises the question of how many of the other authors on this paper contributed substantially?
编辑注意到，该期刊不需要明确宣称他们所做的符合纳入同志的作用的共同宣传。论坛表明，期刊可能希望修改这项政策，并在将军要求作者说明他们的确切贡献。
论坛指出，这种情况强调了作者和争取作用的全部问题。编辑，作者和资助者经常与这些问题斗争，他们正在积极在诸如论坛中讨论的http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/Attribution_workshop.
编辑提交了更好的情况，作为关于该做什么的学习点，以避免将来发生这种情况。他感谢论坛的建议。
Comments
如果有人在修订期间支付捐款，他/她可以在作者中添加吗？
我们如何提供证据？