How Inflated Authorship Erodes Trust and Integrity in Malaysian Academia

In academia, publications are more than scholarly contributions — they are the currency of success. Promotions, research grants, and professional standing often depend on what appears in the byline of a journal article.

But an unhealthy culture has crept into universities around the world, and Malaysia is no exception. Increasingly, names are added to research papers without genuine intellectual contribution. This practice, known as inflated authorship, ranges from the seemingly harmless, such as giving credit to someone who proofread, to the openly transactional, “I add your name, you add mine.”

To some, this may look like a minor internal issue. Yet it is far more damaging. Inflated authorship corrodes trust, undermines collaboration, and distorts the credibility of knowledge. It is a culture that Malaysian academia cannot afford.

Clear Rules, Weak Practice

International guidelines are unambiguous. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires authors to meet four criteria: significant intellectual input, critical revision, final approval, and accountability. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) warns against “gift” authorship, insisting that only substantive contributors deserve to be named.

By these standards, proofreading or minor assistance does not qualify. Yet inflated authorship thrives.

Globally, examples abound. In China, “paper mills” have openly sold authorship slots. In India, rules tying promotions to publication numbers have encouraged “guest authorship.” In the United States, surveys reveal that up to one in five scientists admit to appearing on papers where they did not contribute meaningfully.

Malaysia is not immune. Junior academics whisper that supervisors demand their names on every student paper. In some faculties, including the names of senior staff, it has become routine to increase the chances of acceptance.

Eroding Social Capital

The danger lies in how inflated authorship erodes social capital, which is the trust, respect, and reciprocity that make academic collaboration possible.

Collaboration becomes risky when scholars fear their ideas will be hijacked or their credit diluted. Mentorship is distorted, turning into a transaction: “I’ll help you, but only if my name is added.” Reputations are tainted as even deserving scholars face suspicion in an environment where authorship is inflated. Conflicts multiply, with more time spent negotiating credit than producing knowledge.

Once trust is broken, rebuilding it is slow and difficult. The erosion of social capital is not a side effect but a long-term threat to the integrity of academia. When individuals are credited without meaningful contributions, trust in scholarly work is undermined because it blurs accountability and weakens the reliability of research outputs. When authorship no longer reflects genuine intellectual labour, the credibility of findings is called into question, making peers, institutions, and the public and industry less willing to rely on academic work. This damages not only the reputation of individuals but also the collective trustworthiness of the educational system. The authors have experienced this firsthand several times in industry.

A Breakdown in Communication

Inflated authorship also breaks down communication, both within universities and with society.

Inside institutions, authorship discussions are often vague or avoided altogether. Junior staff fear challenging unfair practices, while senior academics stay silent to maintain harmony. This silence erodes the trust and reciprocity that form the foundation of social capital, leaving collaborations strained and relationships transactional rather than collegial. When difficult conversations about fairness are sidestepped, networks of support weaken, and the willingness to share knowledge or collaborate diminishes. Even if inclination exists, the tendency to have open discussions on the way forward is much overcast by the shadow of fear that one’s ideas, or indeed oneself, will be victimised. Over time, this reduction in social capital undermines the very capacity of academia to serve society, since scholarly contribution depends not only on individual expertise but also on the collective trust and cooperation that make knowledge production possible.

Externally, the problem creates misrepresentation. A co-author listed on a paper is presumed to be an expert, yet their actual role may have been minimal. These individuals may then be invited to conferences, consulted by policymakers, or quoted in the media. The danger is clear: advice is given by those whose certified authority does not match their acquired expertise.

In fields like health, technology, or climate change, this distortion has real-world consequences. Miscommunication born from inflated authorship can mislead public debate and weaken evidence-based policymaking.

Acquired Knowledge vs. Certified Knowledge

At the heart of this issue lies the gap between acquired knowledge and certified knowledge. Acquired knowledge refers to the expertise scholars build over years of study and research, while certified knowledge is the authority society grants through publications, credentials, and recognition. Ideally, the two should align. Inflated authorship disrupts this balance by awarding certification and the appearance of expertise to individuals who have not genuinely acquired the knowledge behind it.

They become authorities in name, but not in substance.

This disconnect is dangerous. Within academia, it breeds mistrust, as peers cannot be sure who truly possesses expertise. Beyond academia, society struggles to know whose voice is credible. The COVID-19 pandemic made this gap painfully visible, as decisions relied on expert guidance. When academic credit does not reflect real knowledge, both scholarly credibility and public trust collapse — weakening not only research integrity but also society’s confidence in those meant to guide it.

Why the Culture Persists

If the rules are clear, why does inflated authorship remain so common?

One factor is power imbalance. Junior academics and postgraduate students are often unable to refuse senior colleagues who demand authorship. The fear of career repercussions keeps them silent.

Another driver is the publish-or-perish system. Universities reward quantity over quality, valuing publication numbers rather than contribution integrity. Inflated authorship helps both individuals and institutions climb rankings, even if credibility suffers.

There is also a lack of awareness. Many academics, particularly early-career researchers, have never been trained in authorship ethics. They may not realise that proofreading or administrative help is not grounds for authorship.

Finally, institutional silence enables the culture to persist. Misconduct often goes unpunished to protect reputations. This inaction sends the message that inflated authorship is tolerated.

A Question of Integrity

Inflated authorship is not a trivial bending of the rules. It is a betrayal of academic trust that undermines collaboration, distorts communication, and weakens the credibility of knowledge.

If allowed to persist, it will create a system where certified authority outweighs acquired expertise, and where politics matters more than contribution. That is a culture Malaysia cannot afford.

Our universities have the talent and capacity to excel globally. But this potential will only be realised if we protect the meaning of authorship and ensure that recognition reflects real contribution. In the end, authorship is more than a name on a page; it is a declaration of responsibility and integrity. Protecting it is essential not only for academia but also for the society that depends on credible knowledge.

Malaysia’s Academic Reputation at Risk

For Malaysia, the stakes are exceptionally high. Our universities aim to rise in global rankings and attract international collaborations. But questionable authorship practices risk alienating foreign partners who expect ethical standards.

If the culture persists, Malaysia may produce more papers but less genuine knowledge — an academic treadmill that looks productive but delivers little. This undermines not only our institutions but also the country’s credibility in the global knowledge economy.

The Way Forward

Addressing inflated authorship requires a cultural reset.

First, universities must adopt and enforce clear policies based on international standards like ICMJE and COPE. These guidelines should be part of formal training for both staff and students.

Second, institutions and journals should require authorship contribution statements, where each author declares their role. Transparency discourages inflated credit.

Third, universities must provide safe reporting channels. Junior academics need protection to challenge unfair practices without fear of retaliation.

Fourth, academia should value acknowledgements properly. Proofreading and technical support should be recognised — but not as authorship.

Finally, senior academics must lead by example. When leaders decline unearned credit, they set a powerful precedent that reshapes expectations.