Taking into full account the existence of field-or discipline-specific guidelines and practices, I write this commentary exclusively based on responsible authorship practices, going beyond the domain of educational and social research. I argue that there should be common ethical standards, beyond the disciplinary practices, regarding what qualifies an individual to be named an author on a paper and what does not. Ethical bodies dealing with publication ethics, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Council of Science Editors, or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, among others, offer valuable guidance on authorship, and most journal publishers have adopted their recommendations. Consequently, it should be evident who deserves credit as an author. However, the reality is often marked by confusion, apprehension, and inadequate communication (Tress Academic, 2021) in co-authorship. Unethical co-authorship, especially ghost and gift, coincides with other ethical transgressions in academic writing and publishing.The co-authorship of supervisors on papers authored by their PhD students is a contentious issue in academia. While the answer to this question may appear straightforward due to established rules governing authorship, this issue is often fraught with complexities (Teixeira da Silva, 2021;Thomson, 2013). Some supervisors, colloquially referred to as the "Byline Bandit" "'steal credit from' or 'ride on the coat