Authorship: guidance and disputes

Definition of authorship

There are varying definitions of authorship. A good starting point is from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which states that:

The term authorship can refer to the creator or originator of an idea … or the individual or individuals who develop and bring to fruition the product that disseminates intellectual or creative works …At a minimum, authors should guarantee that they have participated in creating the work as presented and that they have not violated any other author’s legal rights (eg, copyright) in the process.

There is variation across different publishers, institutions, academic fields, faculties, schools, and departments, about common practices and criteria for determining authorship standards.

Please be aware that different publications have their own authorship criteria. Researchers are advised to check the authorship criteria where they are considering publishing, and that all those involved in the paper understand the criteria (for example what differentiates authorship from acknowledgement) and ensure that the criteria are adhered to. 

Assigning authorship

Decisions about attributing authorship ultimately fall to the researchers themselves, so it is important that these are provisionally agreed upon from the outset of a project, to minimise disagreements later.

Changing circumstances can alter project plans and the level of involvement of individual researchers. There should be flexibility to recognise modified or new authorship contributions as a project progresses. Therefore it is important to maintain  conversations regarding authorship throughout a project  to pre-empt potential disputes occurring. It is recommended that these discussions are recorded, and newly agreed authorship recognition is documented and kept under review.

Acknowledgement

Not all work on a project will qualify as authorship. Technical, experimental, preparatory or investigative work, particularly as part of an educational course, may merit Acknowledgement rather than full Authorship. Again, intentions should be clearly stated prior to work being undertaken.

Ordering

Authorship issues are not confined to who is or is not listed as an author, but also the ordering of authors. There should be a rationale for the agreed ordering noting that ordering conventions may vary depending on the research discipline. Authors should familiarise themselves with the ordering conventions at the earliest opportunity and this should be agreed well before publication. Ordering might relate to the proportion of time contributed, who led the project, the seniority of the authors or could be simply alphabetical (which can be the best approach to avoid disagreements).

Disputes can occur, but should aim to be resolved openly, honestly and as quickly as possible. The Research Governance team can provide impartial, informal, external-to-faculty guidance and early intervention support to help seek resolutions.

Interdisciplinary work

Because there is variation of authorship norms across disciplines, issues can arise during interdisciplinary work. This can be due to the assumption that different disciplines would have the same standards for authorship. This can also be caused by seeking publication with multiple publishers in different disciplines where each publication will have their own authorship criteria. Collaborators should agree upon where they intend to publish their findings, and familiarise themselves with the authorship criteria of each publication. Interdisciplinary researchers may only realise at a later date there are differences and find these are harder to rectify, so it is recommended researchers are mindful of this and address them as early as possible.

Disputes and resolution

Authorship disputes can have a significant impact on a project and all those involved. Publishers will reject or withdraw articles if there is any suggestion of an unresolved dispute.

If a dispute does arise, the Research Governance team can provide impartial, informal external-to-faculty guidance and early intervention support to help seek resolutions. We will aim to find a mutually acceptable resolution – openly, honestly and as quickly as possible.

If a dispute cannot be resolved informally it will be referred for formal review. This process may involve the PVC for Research, the relevant Head of School and the Head of Research Governance It may involve one or more investigations into Research Misconduct. Review timescales for each individual dispute will vary due to the complex and specific nature of each individual case.

This process is an important resource for those with a genuine grievance, relating to authorship or recognition. It should not be used frivolously, as a means to address interpersonal conflicts which have arisen during a project.

Authorship references and further resources

A variety of related resources are available internally at the University and from external organisations.