Cybernetic elves can sometimes play tricks on researchers submitting their papers to scientific journals. Yet, there are many other times when elves may not be the sole guilty party for certain mistakes.

The journal Nephrology 2014 Volume 2 published an article involving ten scientific societies in Spain, “Consensus Document for the Detection and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease” including myself as the leading author and 19 researchers from societies taking part in the draft of the document.1

Very recently, Dr Jordi Bover needed to search PubMed for some data from his published papers and was assailed by the appalling surprise of finding that his name had not been included in the corresponding quote of the Nephrology paper. This was in spite of being the third author, as evidenced in the printed edition and in three official journals of many other participating societies where it was published.2–4 His authorship was also evident online in our webpage and in the webpages of these societies.

Similarly, having recently spoken with Dr Daniel Serón with regard to one of his papers submitted for publication also in Nephrology,I became aware that the paper still remained unpublished despite the long time between its acceptance and the correction of galley proofs. However, this paper had actually been published and the misunderstanding here lay in the fact that PubMed had quoted authors by their first names, instead of by family name followed by first name,5 as per the applicable Vancouver rules.6

“Errare Humanum Est.” In light of the major efforts expended in publishing, it would be worth urging those charged with quoting authors in PubMed and other search engines to carefully perform this task. Considering that having authors’ names correctly quoted is the sole incentive researchers receive as payment for their interest and endeavour. In addition, the impact of publications is a well-known important aspect for curricular assessment when applying for any job, especially, in the National Healthcare.