Hello. The previous lesson focused on crediting sources: when an idea or phrase comes from another work, readers should be able to see where it came from. This lesson begins a new module on credit among people who work together. A research paper’s author list should recognize contributions, but it also identifies people who accept responsibility for the published work.
You will learn to apply a stated authorship policy to a collaboration, then use a contribution statement to describe what each person did. We will use the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria as the policy for this lesson. Other fields and journals may use different rules, so the first step in a real collaboration is always to check the applicable policy.
Authorship is credit with responsibility
Authorship can affect recognition and opportunities. It also tells readers who stands behind a publication. That is why a prominent job title, a generous contribution, or a place in the author list agreed as a favor cannot, by itself, settle who should be an author.
Read the ICMJE’s Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Concentrate on its four-part test rather than trying to memorize examples of every possible research task.
Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors - ICMJE
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors explains why authorship matters and sets out the policy we will apply throughout this lesson.
On the page, read “1. Why Authorship Matters” and the opening of “2. Who Is an Author?” Start with the authorship criteria. Stop at the end of the paragraph explaining that people who meet the first criterion should have an opportunity to help draft or review the manuscript and approve its final version. Pay particular attention to the word “AND” between the four criteria.
Under this policy, an author must meet all four requirements:
- Make a substantial contribution to the work’s conception or design, or to acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting its data.
- Draft the work or critically review it for important intellectual content.
- Approve the final version to be published.
- Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including helping ensure that questions about accuracy or integrity are investigated and resolved.
The “or” within a criterion allows different ways to meet it. Someone need not both design a study and analyze its data. The “and” between criteria is equally important: substantial analysis alone does not complete the authorship test, nor does writing alone.
Accountability does not mean personally performing every part of a collaborative study. Authors should understand who is responsible for other parts, have confidence in their co-authors’ contributions, and be willing to help address a credible concern about any part of the paper. Final approval is therefore more than permission to print someone’s name.
The ICMJE also makes a fairness point: a person who makes a substantial contribution under the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in drafting or critical review and final approval. A team should not exclude a contributor from authorship simply by withholding the manuscript until submission.
Contribution descriptions answer a different question
An author list says who qualified under the policy. It does not, by itself, say what each person did. A contribution statement can supply that detail. One common vocabulary for doing so is CRediT, the Contributor Role Taxonomy.
CRediT role descriptors – CRediT
CRediT’s role descriptors give names to different kinds of research work. Read them as a way to describe contributions, not as an alternative authorship test.
In “CRediT role descriptors,” read the introduction and roles, starting with the explanation above the list and continuing through “Writing – review & editing.” Notice the warning near the start that CRediT is not designed to determine authorship. As you scan the 14 roles, compare “Formal analysis” with “Data curation,” and “Writing – original draft” with “Writing – review & editing.”
CRediT makes work more visible. For example, investigation describes conducting the research or collecting evidence; data curation describes managing data so they can be used and understood; formal analysis describes applying techniques to analyze them. These are distinct activities that a brief author list might conceal. The roles are not ranks, and one person may hold several.
The separation between description and eligibility matters. “Funding acquisition” is a CRediT role, but obtaining funding alone does not satisfy the ICMJE’s four authorship criteria. Conversely, a person who substantially collects data might qualify as an author if they also critically review the manuscript, approve the final version, and accept accountability. The role label documents their work; the policy determines whether they belong on the author list.
Contributions that do not meet the full authorship test still deserve appropriate recognition. Return to the ICMJE guidance for its distinction between authors and acknowledged contributors, as well as its advice about agreeing on an author list.
Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors - ICMJE
This second portion of the ICMJE guidance connects the criteria to team decisions, journal communication, and recognition outside the author list.
In “2. Who Is an Author?,” resume at the paragraph beginning “The individuals who conduct the work” and read the team guidance through the paragraph on changes to the author list. Then read the corresponding-author paragraph. Finally, in “3. Non-Author Contributors,” read the acknowledgment guidance through its advice on permission. Focus on why acknowledgment is meaningful credit without implying authorship.
The ICMJE identifies activities such as general supervision, funding acquisition, administrative support, and technical editing as insufficient on their own for authorship. Acknowledgment can specify these contributions without implying that the contributor accepted an author’s responsibilities. Because being acknowledged may appear to signal endorsement of the paper, the ICMJE advises obtaining the person’s written permission.
Applying the policy to a collaboration
Suppose a team plans to submit a paper to a journal that uses the ICMJE four-criterion policy and requests a CRediT contribution statement. These are the contributions documented before submission:
- Contributor A designed the study, interpreted the findings, critically revised the manuscript, approved the final version, and agreed to the accountability requirement.
- Contributor B substantially collected and organized the study data, critically reviewed the manuscript’s interpretation of those data, approved the final version, and agreed to the accountability requirement.
- Contributor C performed a substantial analysis and developed code used for it. The team has not yet invited C to draft or critically review the manuscript, or to consider its final version.
- Contributor D obtained funding and provided general oversight, but made no further contribution to the study or manuscript.
- Contributor E proofread and formatted the manuscript without changing its intellectual content.
Start with A and B. Each has a qualifying substantial contribution under criterion 1, participated in intellectually substantive manuscript work under criterion 2, approved the final version, and accepted accountability. Both qualify as authors under the stated policy. A contribution statement might describe A’s conceptualization and writing – review & editing, and B’s investigation, data curation, and writing – review & editing. Those labels explain their work; they are not the reason they qualify.
C is not yet ready to be listed as an author. Substantial analysis satisfies one route through criterion 1, but the available facts do not establish criteria 2–4. It would be wrong, however, to treat the missing steps as a convenient reason to leave C out. The team should offer C a genuine chance to draft or critically review the manuscript, inspect the final version, and decide whether to accept accountability. If C completes the remaining criteria, C qualifies as an author; the contribution statement could then include formal analysis and software, alongside any manuscript role actually performed. If C does not meet the remaining criteria, the team should accurately recognize the analysis without presenting C as an author. Simply asking C to approve a finished paper would not substitute for drafting or critical intellectual review.
D and E do not qualify on the stated facts. D’s funding and general oversight, and E’s proofreading and formatting, can be specified in acknowledgments with permission. Calling D’s work funding acquisition in CRediT does not turn it into authorship. Giving D an author position out of gratitude or because of seniority would misrepresent the basis for the credit.
The same approach prevents the opposite error: leaving a qualifying contributor off the paper because their work was less visible than writing the first draft. Authorship decisions should reflect the policy and the actual record of contributions, not just status, convenience, or whose work is easiest to see.
Agree early, then check again before submission
Contributions change as a project develops. A sound process is to discuss the applicable authorship policy when work begins, record who is doing what, and revisit the proposed author list as the manuscript takes shape. Before submission, the team should confirm each proposed author’s substantive contribution, intellectual participation in the manuscript, final approval, and agreement to accountability. It should also make sure acknowledgments and contribution descriptions are accurate.
Author order is a separate decision from eligibility. Its meaning varies across fields and publications; the ICMJE says the author group should decide the ordering criteria collectively. A corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal and related submission requirements. That administrative role does not make the person solely responsible for the paper’s integrity or give them sole authority to decide who qualifies as an author.
If a disagreement cannot be resolved within the team, the ICMJE directs researchers to the relevant institution rather than asking a journal editor to arbitrate who deserves authorship. Changes to an author list after submission also require care and agreement; they should not be treated as a private adjustment by one team member.
What to carry forward
To assign credit responsibly, apply the stated authorship criteria first: under the ICMJE policy used here, every author must satisfy all four. Then describe each person’s actual work using contribution roles where appropriate, and acknowledge contributors who do not qualify as authors. Give substantial contributors a fair opportunity to meet the manuscript-related criteria, and confirm approval and accountability before submission.
This lesson distinguished contribution from authorship without diminishing either. The next lesson examines conflicts of interest: circumstances that may affect, or appear to affect, how research decisions are made and reported.