Authorship and Contribution: Agreeing Academic Credit Before Research Begins

Make authorship an explicit conversation

Authorship affects recognition, responsibility and career progression. Leaving the discussion until a manuscript is ready can create conflict when team members have different expectations. Begin with a conversation about the likely outputs, the work involved and the criteria that will guide credit.

Record provisional arrangements without treating them as an unchangeable promise. Research develops, people join or leave and contributions can differ from initial plans. Explain how the team will revisit decisions and who will help resolve disagreements. A clear process is especially important when seniority, employment or supervision creates unequal bargaining power.

Distinguish authorship from contributorship

Authorship criteria vary across disciplines and journals. The ICMJE framework, widely used in medical publishing, connects qualifying contribution with manuscript involvement, approval and accountability. ^[1] It should not be presented as the only possible standard for every field, but it illustrates why authorship involves responsibility as well as credit.

Contributor descriptions identify the work people performed. CRediT provides a structured taxonomy for describing research contributions. ^[2] Such descriptions can make roles visible, including work that may otherwise be overlooked. They do not automatically determine who qualifies as an author or the order in which authors should appear.

Create a contribution plan

List the anticipated tasks: conceptual development, methods, data collection, software, analysis, supervision, resources, writing and review. Assign responsibilities and identify where training or support is needed. Give contributors a realistic opportunity to participate in the work required by the intended authorship standard.

Discuss author order separately. Some fields use contribution-based ordering, others alphabetical conventions or different arrangements. Explain the convention and how shared or corresponding roles will be handled. Do not assume that securing funding, holding a senior position or providing access automatically settles authorship. Apply the relevant criteria consistently to all team members.

Maintain a record as work progresses

Review contributions at project milestones, such as completion of collection, first analysis and manuscript drafting. Keep a concise record of substantive work and decisions. The aim is transparency, not surveillance or a competition over every small task.

When contributions change, discuss the implications early and respectfully. A colleague who leaves the institution may still merit authorship, while a planned contribution that never occurs may require a different acknowledgement. Ensure that people whose work is described agree with that description. Seek permission before naming acknowledged individuals where required by the journal or institution.

Illustrative example: a cross-institutional paper

Suppose two lecturers design a study, a research officer manages data collection and a statistician develops a complex analysis. A senior manager provided institutional access but did not contribute to the intellectual work. Before writing, the team reviews the target journal's criteria and invites qualifying contributors to participate in drafting or critical revision.

The manager's support is acknowledged appropriately rather than converted into automatic authorship. The research officer's contribution is evaluated on its substance, not job title. The authors agree the order, corresponding responsibilities and final approval process. This arrangement is more defensible than adding names according to rank after the paper is accepted.

Prepare for submission and later accountability

Each author should understand the work sufficiently to meet the applicable responsibilities and know who is responsible for specialised components. Confirm that all listed authors approve the submitted version and relevant declarations. Keep contact details current and share important editorial correspondence.

If an authorship change becomes necessary after submission, follow the journal's procedure and obtain the required agreements. Do not quietly add or remove a name. If a dispute cannot be resolved within the team, seek institutional mediation or the designated research-integrity process. Editors can clarify journal requirements but may not be positioned to investigate the underlying contribution history.

Use an authorship agreement checklist

• Intended outputs and applicable criteria are identified.
• Contributions and opportunities to participate are discussed.
• Author-order conventions are explicit.
• Corresponding and approval responsibilities are assigned.
• Milestones for revisiting credit are scheduled.
• Acknowledgements and permissions are considered.
• Dispute-resolution routes are known.

Transparent credit supports collaboration because participants can see how decisions are made. The agreement should remain responsive to actual work while protecting against coercion, honorary authorship and the exclusion of less powerful contributors. Responsibility for the research record should be as visible as the recognition attached to it.