Understanding Authorship Guidelines: Who Gets Credit in Research?

Understanding Authorship Guidelines: Who Deserves Credit?

Introduction

For many researchers, authorship is the most visible recognition of their contribution to a project. A name on a published article can influence hiring decisions, promotion cases, grant applications, and professional reputation. At the same time, authorship also carries serious responsibilities: authors are expected to stand behind the accuracy, integrity, and ethical soundness of the work.

Because research is increasingly collaborative—often involving large, multidisciplinary teams spread across different institutions—the question of who deserves authorship has become more complicated. Disagreements about author order, inclusion or exclusion of contributors, and the growing use of AI tools in writing and analysis have made this a sensitive topic. To address these challenges, international organisations and publishers have developed detailed authorship guidelines.

This article explains the main authorship frameworks used in academic publishing, explores common ethical problems such as guest and ghost authorship, clarifies how roles like first and corresponding author are typically interpreted, and offers practical guidance on how research teams can make fair, transparent authorship decisions.

1. What Are Authorship Guidelines?

Authorship guidelines are formal criteria and recommendations that define who qualifies as an author of a scholarly work and what responsibilities those authors have. They are designed to ensure that credit is allocated fairly, that readers know who is accountable for the research, and that unethical practices are discouraged.

Several organisations have played a central role in shaping current standards:

• ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): primarily influential in biomedical and clinical research, but widely referenced beyond medicine.
• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): provides broader guidance on publication ethics, including authorship, conflicts of interest, and misconduct.
• CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): a structured way of describing the specific roles each author has played in a study.

1.1 ICMJE’s Four Criteria for Authorship

The ICMJE recommends that an individual should be listed as an author only if they meet all four of the following criteria:

1. Substantial contribution: They contributed meaningfully to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
2. Drafting or revising the manuscript: They took part in writing the paper or making critical intellectual revisions.
3. Final approval: They reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.
4. Accountability: They agree to be accountable for their contributions and to help resolve any questions regarding accuracy or integrity.

Individuals who assist with data collection, provide routine technical help, or offer general supervision—but do not meet all four criteria—should be named in the Acknowledgements instead of being listed as authors.

1.2 COPE and Broader Ethical Context

COPE does not prescribe a single set of authorship criteria but emphasises transparency, honesty, and good communication. It encourages journals and institutions to define their own authorship policies clearly and to ensure that disputes are handled fairly. COPE also provides guidance for editors on how to respond when authorship problems arise, for example when a previously omitted contributor claims they should have been included.

1.3 CRediT: Describing Who Did What

The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) offers a structured vocabulary for describing specific aspects of a contributor’s role. Common CRediT categories include:

• Conceptualisation
• Methodology
• Software
• Validation
• Formal Analysis
• Investigation
• Data Curation
• Writing – Original Draft
• Writing – Review & Editing
• Supervision
• Project Administration
• Funding Acquisition

Many journals now require a CRediT-style contribution statement, which helps avoid misunderstandings and makes individual contributions more transparent.

2. Unethical Authorship Practices and Common Disputes

2.1 Guest, Ghost, and Honorary Authorship

Some of the most problematic authorship practices have become familiar enough to acquire standard labels:

• Guest authorship: including a well-known researcher or senior colleague to make a paper appear more impressive, even though their contribution was minimal or symbolic.
• Ghost authorship: failing to list individuals who made substantial contributions, for instance junior researchers, professional writers, or statisticians.
• Honorary or gift authorship: naming someone—often a head of department or senior supervisor—out of respect or tradition, rather than because they met authorship criteria.

These practices misrepresent the true contributors and are widely considered forms of academic misconduct. They may also complicate accountability: if something is wrong with the data or analysis, who is responsible?

2.2 Disagreements Over Contribution and Author Order

In collaborative projects, disagreements often arise about who should be included as an author and in which position. Common sources of tension include:

• Different perceptions of what counts as a “substantial” contribution.
• Conflicting expectations between senior and junior team members.
• Last-minute changes in the scope of the project that alter who did what.

Without early, clear agreement on roles and authorship criteria, these disputes may surface only at submission time—precisely when deadlines and pressure are highest.

2.3 AI-Generated Content and Why AI Cannot Be an Author

The widespread use of AI tools, such as large language models and automated image or data generators, has added a new dimension to authorship discussions. While AI can assist with drafting, editing, summarising literature, or suggesting language improvements, it cannot meet core authorship criteria: it does not take responsibility, cannot give informed consent, and cannot be held accountable if errors or misconduct occur.

For these reasons, many journals explicitly state that AI systems cannot be listed as authors. Instead, researchers should disclose any use of AI in the methods, acknowledgements, or a dedicated “Author Use of AI” section, in line with journal policies.

3. Understanding Author Roles: First, Corresponding, and Last Author

3.1 First Author

The first author is usually the researcher who made the largest overall contribution to the project. This often includes designing the study, performing experiments or data collection, and drafting the initial version of the manuscript. In many disciplines, the first author position is especially important for early-career researchers when applying for jobs or grants.

3.2 Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is the main contact person for the journal and for readers after publication. Their responsibilities typically include:

• Submitting the manuscript and managing the revision process.
• Ensuring that all co-authors approve each version of the manuscript and the final submitted document.
• Handling queries from editors, reviewers, and readers after publication.

In some cases, the corresponding author is also the first author; in others, they are a senior team member with stable institutional contact details.

3.3 Last Author, Senior Author, and Co-First Authorship

In many STEM fields, the last author position is associated with the senior researcher or principal investigator who led and supervised the project. This person may have secured funding, provided the overall research direction, and supported junior researchers’ work.

Some teams also designate co-first authors when two or more individuals contributed equally. Journals may allow a footnote such as “These authors contributed equally to this work”. Where this is used, it should reflect genuine parity in contribution, not simply a compromise in a dispute.

4. Best Practices for Assigning Authorship

4.1 Discuss Authorship Early and Revisit as Needed

One of the most effective ways to prevent conflict is to discuss authorship at the start of a project. Research teams should clarify:

• Who is likely to be an author and why.
• How author order will be decided (e.g., contribution-based, alphabetical, or a combination).
• How new contributors will be added or roles updated as the project evolves.

Because projects change over time, these discussions should be revisited periodically, especially after major shifts in scope or personnel.

4.2 Document Contributions Throughout the Project

Maintaining a written record of who contributed what can be extremely helpful. Simple strategies include:

• Using contribution logs or spreadsheets where tasks are assigned and tracked.
• Aligning tasks with CRediT roles so that final contribution statements are easy to prepare.
• Recording key decisions about authorship in meeting minutes or email threads.

This documentation can prevent misunderstandings and support fair decisions if disagreements occur later.

4.3 Follow Journal-Specific Authorship Policies

While general guidelines such as ICMJE and COPE are influential, individual journals often have their own authorship policies. Before submission, it is essential to:

• Read the journal’s instructions for authors carefully.
• Prepare any required contribution statements or authorship forms.
• Ensure that all listed authors agree with how their role is described.

4.4 Ensure Ethical Practices and Use Mediation When Needed

Ethical authorship involves both including all contributors who meet criteria and excluding those who do not. If disputes arise, possible steps include:

• Discussing concerns openly within the research team.
• Seeking advice from a neutral senior colleague or mentor.
• Requesting mediation from an institutional ethics or research integrity office.

Editors may also become involved if a dispute surfaces during or after peer review, but most prefer that institutions take primary responsibility for resolving internal disagreements.

4.5 Acknowledge Non-Author Contributors Properly

Many individuals contribute to a project without meeting full authorship criteria—such as laboratory technicians, language editors, statisticians providing routine support, or professional proofreading services. They should be recognised in the Acknowledgements section, with their permission. This approach gives credit where due without diluting the meaning of authorship.

5. Journals, Policies, and Evolving Expectations

5.1 Alignment with ICMJE and COPE

Major publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and many society journals anchor their policies in ICMJE and COPE principles. They often require that:

• All authors confirm they meet authorship criteria.
• One corresponding author takes responsibility for communication.
• Any changes in authorship (additions, removals, order changes) after submission are justified and approved by all authors.

5.2 Adoption of CRediT and Contribution Statements

To enhance transparency, an increasing number of journals request detailed contribution statements based on CRediT. This not only clarifies who did what but also helps evaluators (such as hiring committees) understand a researcher’s role beyond name order.

5.3 Handling Authorship Misconduct

When unethical authorship practices come to light—such as the omission of a legitimate contributor or the addition of a guest author—journals may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, depending on severity. Institutions may also investigate and impose sanctions. This underlines the importance of getting authorship right from the beginning.

6. Practical Scenarios and How to Handle Them

6.1 The “Helpful Colleague”

A colleague offers a few useful comments on a draft or suggests a reference. While their help is appreciated, it usually does not meet the threshold for authorship. A brief acknowledgement is often the most appropriate form of recognition.

6.2 The Senior Supervisor with Limited Involvement

In some environments, there is an expectation that a laboratory head or department chair will be listed as an author on every paper from their group. If their involvement is limited to providing general oversight or resources, this may not satisfy authorship criteria. Open discussion, supported by institutional guidelines, can help ensure that senior figures are listed as authors only when their contributions are substantive.

6.3 Professional Editing and Proofreading

Professional editing and proofreading services can substantially improve clarity, language, and formatting. However, they generally do not conceptualise the research, design methods, or interpret results. In most cases they therefore do not qualify for authorship, but may be acknowledged if journal policies and contracts allow. This distinction is important at a time when universities and publishers closely monitor AI use and emphasise the value of human, accountable expertise.

Conclusion

Authorship is a powerful form of academic currency, but it should reflect genuine intellectual and practical contributions to research—not hierarchy, habit, or convenience. By following established guidelines such as those from ICMJE, COPE, and CRediT; by talking openly about expectations; and by documenting contributions throughout a project, researchers can make fairer and more transparent decisions about who deserves credit.

Clear authorship practices protect both individuals and institutions. They signal respect for colleagues, strengthen trust in published work, and support the long-term integrity of the scholarly record. In a research environment increasingly shaped by collaboration, open science, and AI tools, thoughtful attention to authorship is not just a formality—it is a core part of responsible research practice.

Further Reading

If you would like to explore related aspects of research ethics and academic publishing, the following resources may be helpful:

1. ICMJE 2025: Key Changes in Authorship, AI Use, and Ethical Publishing – An overview of evolving authorship and AI disclosure requirements.
2. How Editors Can Detect and Address Plagiarism in Research Manuscripts – Guidance on plagiarism detection and prevention.
3. AI in Peer Review: Enhancing Accuracy, Reducing Bias, and Improving Efficiency – A discussion of the benefits and risks of AI-assisted peer review.
4. Avoiding Duplicate Publications: Why Self-Plagiarism Hurts Research – Explains how self-plagiarism can damage credibility and the scholarly record.
5. Navigating the Peer Review Process: Different Types and Their Impact on Research – An introduction to peer review models and what authors can expect.

Together, these resources can help researchers build a deeper understanding of responsible authorship, ethical publication, and the broader ecosystem in which their work will be evaluated and read.