Authorship

Who is an author? Criteria for authorship

Authorship is an explicit way to give credit to everyone who made a significant contribution to the work. In turn, this implies that it can be expected that all authors are fully accountable for all aspects of the work, unless otherwise specified.  

As with authorship, it is important to reach clear agreements on the authorship order. According to the ALLEA code, all authors should agree on the sequence of authorship. Any form of listing is possible, if in line with the principles of research integrity and the policies that apply. As an author, you should also be able to explain the system of and the reasoning behind the agreed author order. 

Like science itself, standards for attributing authorship may also evolve, e.g. as prevailing practices within a discipline change over time. The research context itself is also a determining factor. For example, it can become difficult (but not impossible) to correctly attribute authorship in the case of (large) collaborations, increasing specialisation, an increasing degree of inter- and transdisciplinary research, etc.  

Nonetheless, the basic principles listed in the ALLEA code must be followed as they constitute the minimum standard for all researchers, in all disciplines and to all forms of output. This means that: 

• All those designated as authors should meet all criteria for authorship, and all who meet the criteria should be identified as authors.  
• Those who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged, e.g. in a separate list in the acknowledgements or a footnote.  
• In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.  
• Finally, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.  

  Besides the ALLEA code as leading framework, authorship guidelines are drawn up by many other stakeholders in science e.g. funders, journals, etc. Examples include the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), originally developed for the (bio)medical field, but now also followed by many other fields, and the guidelines of the American Psychological Association Journals (APA). Please note that also journals and/or your host institution may have developed their own authorship policies.  It is therefore necessary to always check them as early as possible. This is especially appropriate in the case of (international) collaboration.

Authorship order

In addition to being included as an author (or not), the order of authors is also determined by specific agreements. According to the ALLEA code, all authors should agree on the sequence of authorship.  

Different systems can be used for this, not infrequently depending on the discipline. Alphabetical order or degree of contribution/collaboration are the most well-known protocols for ordering authors, but should not be seen as an absolute way to determine who contributed most to the study. Any form of listing is possible, if in line with the principles of research integrity and the policies that apply.  

As an author, you should also be able to explain the system of and the reasoning behind the agreed author order. 

It is advised for researchers to indicate the system used and the decisions derived from it, e.g. in the footnote of the contribution. In this way, readers/evaluators can correctly appreciate the listing (and thus the underlying contribution).

Good academic practices on authorship

To avoid authorship issues, good communication between the researchers involved in the project is key. Authorship disputes are one of, if not the biggest, drivers for conflict between researchers.  

Some good academic practices to avoid authorship issues:  

• Do not postpone agreement about authorship – authorship should not be decided on when getting a manuscript ready for submission. Instead, expectations about authorship should be discussed as early as possible when drafting the article format, in a transparent way and preferably in writing throughout the project.  
• As authorship contributions might change over the course of the research/article, this might also impact whether a researcher can remain an author and/or whether additional researchers have to be added to the list of authors. Be transparent regarding necessary changes in authorship and have these changes approved by all authors.  
• Be consistent when awarding authorship and use the same criteria for all involved and across all publications.  
• There is more than one way to reward contributions to articles. Contributors who don’t meet the authorship criteria can e.g. be mentioned in the acknowledgements or in an expression of gratitude in the notes or at the beginning of the article text.  
• Inform all authors and, if necessary, contributors before submitting a manuscript and have the last version of the manuscript approved by all contributors.  

In order to increase transparency, many universities and journals recommend or even compel authors to disclose the contribution of each of the authors in the form of an authorship contribution disclosure and to publish this information together with or in the paper.

Specifying contributions can take different forms: a written statement in one’s own words, the so-called ‘author(ship) contribution statement’, whether or not in a predetermined format; use of ‘digital badges’ where each contribution corresponds to a specific colored badge, e.g. a red badge for writing the first draft. The most well-known example is a pre-established classification of different (traditional and other) roles in a “Contributor Roles Taxonomy” (e.g. CRediT). This high-level taxonomy consists of 14 roles (Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft and Writing – review & editing) which can be used to uniformly describe each contributor’s role in the research. 

When one of the authors leaves the institution

The timeframe for getting articles published doesn’t always match a researcher’s current academic affiliation. Sometimes researchers leave before a project or article is finalized. In this case, it is important to take additional arrangements to settle contributions to an article and accompanying rewards. In all cases, the work done by a researcher should be acknowledged correctly whether that person is still employed at the time of publication or not.  

Additional arrangements concern:   

• Is the researcher leaving able/willing to follow-up on the article?   
• What if (minor or major) changes have to be made after peer review?  
• What if additional research practices have to be made e.g. extra calculations?  
• What is the possible effect to authorship contribution/order?  
• What if the paper is not accepted, how will follow-up be discussed, e.g. when the article will be submitted to a different journal?  
• How will decisions be made in these changes?  
• …  

Even though publication of an article can take some time, up-to-date contact details of the person leaving are still necessary. It is important to inform that person about content-related and practical changes, as well as publication progress, at all times.