University of Arizona Authorship Guidelines
and Dispute Resolution Process
Authorship confers credit and has singificant implications for researchers. The University of Arizona is committed to ensuring fair recognition of contributions in research and scholarly publications and to providing guidelines that foster a culture of transparency, collaboration, and collegiality. Below we address what authorship means and why it matters, what authorship resources are available, and how to handle disputes in authorship.
Jump to specific sections using the links below:
- What is Authorship and why does it matter?
- Establishing Authorship Criteria
- Authorship Guidelines
- Process for Resolving Authorship Disputes
- Resources
What is Authorship and why does it matter?
Authorship is a critical component of research, reflecting the contributions of individuals to a body of work. It signifies not only the creation of ideas but also the collaborative effort required to bring those ideas to fruition, whether through developing theories, conducting experiments, or writing scholarly articles. Authorship matters because it is the primary means by which researchers receive recognition and credit for their work. This recognition is essential for professional advancement, promotions, funding opportunities, and reputational standing—of both the author and institution—within the academic community.
Authorship carries significant ethical and legal responsibilities. Authors must ensure that their contributions are accurately represented, that all collaborators are appropriately credited, and that the integrity of the research is maintained. Adhering to authorship guidelines helps prevent ethical breaches and fosters a culture of transparency and trust in scholarly communication. Ultimately, clear and fair authorship practices are foundational to the advancement of knowledge and the integrity of the research enterprise.
Establishing Authorship Criteria
It is important to establish and document (in writing) authorship criteria very early. Whether you are working with a lab that just started a new project, or if you are starting work on an existing project, having conversations about authorship and documenting the expectations can ensure clear understanding up front and prevent conflicts when it comes time to publish.
Keep in mind that authorship guidelines can vary between disciplines—this is especially important for projects that involve collaboration across multiple disciplines. Collaborate with your team and collaborators to find discipline-specific resources, such as professional organizations or journal guidelines, to help establish appropriate authorship criteria for your project.
Authorship Expectations
Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to a research project. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established recommended criteria for authorship that has been widely accepted by several sponsoring agencies, organizations, and journals:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Certain contributions, while valuable, do not by themselves justify authorship. In these cases, an Acknowledgement may be more appropriate—acknowledging contributors ensures they receive due recognition for their efforts while maintaining the integrity and transparency of the authorship record. Some examples of contributions that might not rise to the level of authorship include:
- Acquisition of funding: Securing financial support for the project.
- General supervision: Providing overall guidance without direct intellectual input.
- Administrative support: Offering logistical assistance.
- Technical assistance: Contributing to data collection or providing materials without intellectual contribution.
Although there is no universal definition of authorship, it plays a crucial role in documenting contributions, establishing accountability, and shaping academic careers. It should be granted exclusively to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. Each author must be able to specify their individual contribution to the work, ensuring transparency and responsibility.
Mentorship and Authorship Expectations
Mentorship plays a crucial role in the authorship process. Effective mentors ensure that all contributors understand their roles, responsibilities, and expectations regarding authorship. Mentors should guide their mentees through the complexities of authorship, including criteria for inclusion, the significance of order, and ethical considerations.
To ensure that all mentees meet authorship expectations and stay on track for success, documentation and regular meetings are essential. Documenting agreements on authorship criteria and responsibilities helps prevent misunderstandings and provides a clear reference for future discussions. Regular meetings allow mentors to review progress, address any concerns, and ensure that mentees and other contributors are meeting the necessary expectations to be listed as authors.
The following are some suggested steps mentors can take to communicate authorship expectations:
- Initial Discussion: Bring all collaborators together to discuss the appropriate authorship criteria for the project.
- Written Agreement: Develop a written Authorship Agreement outlining the criteria for authorship, criteria for acknowledgement, and order of authors.
- Role Clarification: Identify the specific roles and contributions of each team member and review against the established criteria for authorship.
- Periodic Review: Have regularly scheduled meetings to address progress towards plan and, if needed, adjust plans for authorship.
Regular meetings in both team and individual settings can ensure mentees are on track towards authorship and help identify any need to address concerns before a conflict arises. In additional to following these steps, mentors should emphasize the importance of ethical authorship practices, including:
- Transparency: Encourage open and honest communication about contributions and expectations.
- Acknowledgement: Recognize all contributions appropriately, even if they do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., through acknowledgements).
- Accountability: Ensure all authors take responsibility for their contributions and the integrity of the research.
By fostering a culture of clear communication, documentation, and equity, mentors can help ensure that authorship is fairly assigned and disputes are minimized.
Authorship Guidelines
The following guidelines were developed from multiple sources, but keep in mind that authorship guidelines can vary between disciplines. Research professional organizations and journal guidelines for discipline-specific information, and always discuss expectations for authorship with colleagues and collaborators early to establish authorship criteria.
Order of Authorship
The order in which authors are listed should reflect the relative contributions of each contributor. Similar to authorship criteria, authorship order is heavily influenced by individual disciplines. For example, in biomedical research, the last author is often the senior researcher or Principal Investigator (PI) who led the project, whereas the first author would be a junior researcher who performed the majority of the experiments. Alternatively, in some humanities disciplines, it is more common to list the senior researcher that conceived the research idea first. Lastly, authorship may be dictated alphabetically as is sometimes done in economics or mathematics (the practice of alphabetical ordering is usually footnoted). This can be especially difficult to navigate in cross-discipline research projects. Between the first author and the last author, there might be perceived significance associated with the ordinal placement of the authors. For example, it's typically perceived that the second author has contributed more to the work than the third author.
Discussions about the authorship order should begin early in the research process and be revisited as necessary. In addition to authorship, discussions should include data ownership, future use and sharing, and additional authorship requirements. This proactive approach helps prevent misunderstandings and disputes later.
Unethical Authorship
Unethical authorship practices undermine the above principles of authorship, leading to misattribution and potential conflicts. The two most common types of unethical authorship are Ghost Authorship and Guest Authorship:
- Ghost Authorship: This occurs when individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research or writing are not listed as authors.
- Guest Authorship: Also known as honorary or gift authorship, this involves including individuals as authors who have not made significant contributions to the work.
These practices distort the true record of contributions, mislead reviewers and readers about the origins of the work, and unfairly affect the careers of those involved. By adhering to ethical guidelines and maintaining clear communication among all research participants, the integrity of authorship can be upheld, ensuring that credit is accurately assigned and that all contributors are appropriately recognized.
Process for Resolving Authorship Disputes
Despite best efforts, disputes over authorship can arise. The University of Arizona has established a structured process to resolve these disputes fairly and transparently.
- Internal Resolution: Researchers should first discuss between themselves ways to resolve the dispute. Junior researchers, including trainees and students, should discuss the issue with a supervisor, laboratory head, advisor, or mentor as appropriate. If necessary, an independent third party, such as an impartial colleague or representative from the Graduate School or program administration if a student is involved, can provide valuable impartiality to the discussion. See the resources section below for tools to assist with conflict mediation.
- Ombuds/Department Head/Dean of Students: When disputes arise and cannot be resolved internally, they should be presented to the Ombuds in collaboration with the Department Head or Associate Dean for Research in the appropriate Unit(s) for mediation. Issues involving students should always include the Dean of Students. See the resources section below for offices that can assist with authorship disputes.
- Dean of College/Dean of Students: When a resolution is not possible with the department head(s), the issue should be taken to the Dean of the College(s). Issues involving students should always include the Dean of Students. See the resources section below for offices that can assist with authorship disputes.
If an issue cannot be resolved using the above processes, there may be additional concerns such as adherence to the faculty or student code of conduct, research misconduct, and harassment/bullying or other human resource related issues. In these instances, the Provost and Senior Vice President for Research should be notified.
Authorship disputes may occur between colleagues at multiple institutions. Should this arise the same process as noted above should be used but include the respective parties from both institutions.
Dr. Michael Lauer, Deputy Director of Extramural Research offers some alternatives to prevent authorship disputes from happening:
- Institutions, departments, or large multi-site research groups could establish publication committees. These committees would allow information and rules regarding all matters related to authorship to be laid out and negotiated in advance. The committees could also address issues that come up due to changing circumstances once a project is under way (e.g., one of the project members drops out).
- Individual labs can write and disseminate their own authorship policies and procedures. Individuals could consider also including these in a lab manual. These policies could be revisited over time as personnel and circumstances change.
- Most journals already require that the corresponding author attest that the other authors are in agreement with the entire content of the paper. A manuscript should only be submitted if everybody agrees.
Discussing these issues early and often will likely prevent authorship disputes from occurring. Individuals needing assistance on how to navigate an authorship dispute, harassment in a laboratory or research setting, or other general concerns about research can contact the Research Integrity Officer for guidance.
Authorship, Plagiarism and Harassment
Authorship disputes frequently are thought of as research misconduct and referred to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO). Alternatively, they may be viewed as harassment or discrimination where some may feel discriminated against for being left off the paper or harassed if they are pressured into being an author when they do not want to be. Authorships disputes are not typically handled as research misconduct or harassment. Unless the allegation that one author has plagiarized, falsified or fabricated data is credible and specific, authorship disputes are a scholarly activity that are not subject to the research misconduct policy. Authorship disputes may indicate deeper problems in a research group that are more structural, human resource in nature, or violations of the faculty or student codes of conduct. In these cases, department heads and deans should work with the relevant university offices for review.
Individuals needing assistance on how to navigate an authorship dispute, harassment in a laboratory or research setting, or other general concerns about research can contact the Research Integrity Officer for guidance.
Resources
Authorship and Mentorship Tools
U of A Offices
Additional Information on Authorship
- American Psychological Association (APA)
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
- Council of Science Editors (CSE)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
- Nature Portfolio
- National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
- National Institutes of Health (NIH)
- PLOS ONE
- Taylor & Francis Authors Services
- US Dept of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity
- US Dept of the Interior