Agreeing authorship before submission

Authorship discussions become harder when they begin with a nearly finished title page. By then, people may have different memories of what was promised, which contributions mattered and who was expected to complete the writing.

Begin with a record of the work and the applicable policy. Then make separate decisions about eligibility, contribution descriptions, order and responsibility for correspondence. A single list of names cannot explain all four. This guide offers a contribution-and-approval process for a research team; it does not impose one discipline’s authorship convention on every field.

Identify the policy before applying criteria

Read the target journal’s authorship requirements and the relevant institutional guidance. If the team is still choosing a venue, record which disciplinary framework it is using provisionally and revisit it when the journal is selected.

ICMJE’s recommendations are especially relevant to medical journals and journals that adopt them. They combine four requirements: substantial intellectual or research contribution; drafting or critical intellectual review; final approval; and accountability. Meeting only one is not sufficient under that framework. 1

Do not assume every journal uses precisely that formulation. Most PLOS journals, for example, use criteria based on McNutt and colleagues, while PLOS Medicine is an identified exception. PLOS’s current authorship page should be consulted for the applicable journal. 4

This difference is not an invitation to shop for a convenient definition after a dispute. It is a reason to make the governing policy explicit early. Keep its title, link and date in the project record, and distinguish a journal requirement from a local custom that the group has chosen to follow.

Separate eligibility from contribution descriptions

Ask first whether a person meets the applicable authorship requirements. Ask separately what work they performed. A contribution statement should describe that work accurately even when the answer about authorship is unresolved.

CRediT provides standard contributor-role descriptions. Its guidance explicitly says the roles are not intended to define authorship; one person may have several roles, and several people may share one role. 2

Use the taxonomy as a vocabulary, not a points system. Do not assume that accumulating more role labels automatically establishes eligibility or a particular author position. Conversely, a concentrated contribution in one important area should not be dismissed merely because it occupies fewer boxes.

Write a short description beside each role. “Analysis” becomes more informative when the record says which analysis was designed, implemented or checked. “Writing” should distinguish drafting from substantive revision where the distinction matters. Retain enough detail for the group to recognise the actual work without turning the document into minute-by-minute surveillance.

Invite each contributor to review the description rather than assigning roles silently at the end. NISO’s implementation guidance supports discussing and confirming assignments with contributors. 3

Do not confuse seniority with a contribution

A title, funding relationship or supervisory position does not explain what someone contributed to the particular paper. Under ICMJE, activities such as funding acquisition or general supervision alone do not meet the complete authorship criteria. The recommendations also say contributors who meet the substantial-contribution criterion should have an opportunity to participate in drafting, review and approval. 1

Apply the policy to the work rather than using it selectively. Do not exclude a contributor by withholding the chance to review the manuscript, then argue that they failed to review it. Do not add a senior name because the team believes it will improve the paper’s reception.

Ask who has been easy to overlook: people who developed instruments, curated difficult data, contributed contextual interpretation, built software or worked at a collaborating site. Their eligibility still depends on the applicable criteria, but their work should be examined directly rather than inferred from job title or visibility in meetings.

Give contributors a way to correct the record privately if the group has a strong hierarchy. A shared spreadsheet is not enough if people feel unable to challenge an inaccurate description. Identify an appropriate institutional contact for advice when the research team cannot provide a fair setting for that discussion.

Agree author order as a separate decision

Once eligibility is understood, discuss the order using the conventions relevant to the discipline and journal. Do not presume that alphabetical order, contribution order, first-author priority or a senior last-author position means the same thing everywhere.

Record the principle the group will use and how it applies to this manuscript. If equal-contribution statements are proposed, verify that the journal permits them and agree on accurate wording. Do not use an equal-contribution note to avoid discussing a disagreement that remains unresolved.

Keep the order provisional while substantial work is still outstanding. State what circumstances would prompt reconsideration, such as a major new analysis or a change in writing responsibilities. A provisional agreement should be revisitable for documented reasons rather than vulnerable to unexplained last-minute changes.

When order changes, record the reason and circulate the revised title page to everyone. Ensure the same order appears in the manuscript, submission form, contribution statement and any cover letter. A mismatch can arise from administration even when the group has reached agreement.

Define the corresponding author’s job

Choose a corresponding author who can actually coordinate the submission and subsequent queries. Agree who will maintain contact details, circulate editorial decisions, collect approvals and preserve the submission record. If one person handles the system while another is named for publication correspondence, check the journal’s rules and make that arrangement explicit.

The role should not be treated merely as an honorary position or a funding device. The team needs a dependable route for questions during review and after publication. Discuss what happens when someone leaves the institution or loses access to an account.

Identify who can answer questions about different parts of the work. The corresponding author need not personally perform every analysis, but the group should know where the records are and whom to involve when an issue arises.

Keep access arrangements proportionate. Store records in an appropriate institutional location, not only in a private email account. Use the institution’s permissions and retention practices for sensitive material. The authorship worksheet should point to records without exposing confidential data to people who do not need them.

A contribution-and-approval worksheet

Use one row per contributor. Include people whose eligibility is still being discussed so that their contributions do not disappear from view. This is a blank working document, not an authorship certificate.

Field	Entry to complete
Contributor and affiliation	___
Work performed for this manuscript	___
Relevant CRediT roles, if used	___
Evidence or work product	___
Applicable eligibility criteria met	___
Remaining contribution or review needed	___
Proposed authorship or acknowledgement	___
Contributor’s confirmation or concern	___
Final version reviewed	___
Approval date and recorded response	___

Keep a separate group record for author order, corresponding-author arrangements and unresolved questions. That prevents an individual’s approval of a role description from being mistaken for approval of the entire manuscript and author list.

Do not pre-tick approval fields or interpret silence as consent. Request an explicit response tied to an identifiable version. If a contributor is unavailable, consult the journal and institutional policy about the situation rather than signing on their behalf or silently removing them.

Use a realistic review window and tell contributors what decisions are needed. A request sent shortly before a submission deadline may produce hurried assent without substantive review. Build the approval stage into the project timetable.

A meeting agenda for the first authorship discussion

Circulate the policy and a draft contribution record before the meeting. Ask everyone to correct factual omissions first. That puts the discussion on firmer ground than opening with a proposed ranking of names.

Then work through eligibility, remaining responsibilities, order and correspondence in that sequence. Keep a record of what is agreed and what is provisional. Assign actions for gaps, such as giving a contributor time to review the draft or asking the journal about a group-author format.

Use questions that invite specifics: Which parts of the argument can each person defend? Who needs to review the revised analysis? Which contribution description is inaccurate? What work is still expected before final approval?

Avoid negotiating authorship as compensation for unrelated favours, access or future projects. If collaborators disagree about what was promised, preserve the relevant records and seek institutional advice. A hurried compromise on the title page may not resolve the underlying dispute.

After the meeting, circulate concise notes and invite corrections. Store them with the manuscript record so that later team members or revised drafts do not erase the agreement’s context.

Revisit the record during revision

Peer review can change the contribution pattern. A new collaborator may perform substantial work, or an existing contributor may take on a major new role. Reassess the relevant criteria and update contribution descriptions instead of treating the initial list as permanently fixed.

A change in authorship is more than editing a word-processing file. Follow the journal’s process for additions, removals or order changes. PLOS, for example, requires the submission information to be updated and its authorship-change requirements fulfilled. 4

Tell all contributors what changed and why. Confirm that the revised manuscript, contribution statement and submission-system metadata agree. Do not allow one author’s departure from a project to become an unexamined reason to remove credit for work already performed.

Recheck approvals after substantive revisions. Someone who approved the first submission has not necessarily approved a new analysis or conclusion that alters their contribution. Identify the version and changes clearly in the approval request.

A final approval request

Adapt this blank message to the journal’s actual requirements:

Please review manuscript version [file name and date], the proposed author list and order, the contribution statement and the submission declarations for [journal]. The main changes since your last review are [changes].

Please confirm that your contribution is described accurately, that you approve this version and the authorship arrangement, and that you can meet the responsibilities required by [policy link]. Please identify any correction, unresolved concern or disclosure that must be addressed before submission.

We plan to submit on [date], subject to resolving outstanding points and receiving the required approvals. If you need more time, please let [coordinator] know by [date].

This request makes approval conditional on an actual review and gives people a route to raise concerns. Retain the replies. A single “everyone is happy” statement from one collaborator is weaker than the contributors’ own recorded responses.

Acknowledge contributions accurately

Some people make valuable contributions without meeting the chosen authorship criteria. Describe those contributions appropriately and obtain permission where the journal requires it. Under ICMJE, naming someone in acknowledgements can imply endorsement, so permission matters. 1

Do not use acknowledgements to hide a contribution that should be considered for authorship. Equally, do not present paid editing, administrative help or access to resources as authorship automatically. Evaluate the work under the applicable policy and disclose relevant assistance honestly.

Check the wording with the person being acknowledged, particularly if it could be interpreted as approval of the findings. Keep funding statements and conflicts disclosures in the places the journal requires; an acknowledgement is not a substitute for those declarations.

When agreement breaks down

Pause submission if the author list, approvals or accountability arrangements remain materially disputed. Preserve draft histories, contribution records and correspondence. Ask the appropriate institutional research-integrity or dispute-resolution office for guidance, particularly where power differences make direct negotiation difficult.

COPE’s guidance distinguishes institutional responsibility for researchers’ conduct from journals’ responsibility for editorial processes and the published record. Cooperation may be needed, but an editor is not positioned to reconstruct every contribution within a research group. 5

If the manuscript is already under consideration, tell the journal there is an unresolved authorship issue and follow its instructions. Do not attempt to solve the problem by changing the author list without disclosure. Keep communications factual and limit circulation to people who need to address the issue.

The contribution record will not eliminate every dispute. Its value is that the group can discuss specific work, policy and approvals rather than relying only on status, memory or a deadline. That is a more defensible basis for the names attached to the paper.