Authorship norms: they differ by field and by country, so agree explicitly

Two collaborators can both act entirely in good faith and still disagree about who should be an author — because they learned different conventions and neither realises the other's are different.

Where conventions differ

• Whether the head of a laboratory is automatically included.
• What the last author position signifies, or whether it signifies anything.
• Whether providing data or funding earns authorship.
• Whether alphabetical order is used.
• The second point causes the most confusion in international teams.

The widely used criteria

• Substantial contribution to conception, design, or analysis.
• Involvement in drafting or revising the content.
• Approval of the final version.
• Accountability for the work.
• Funding or providing samples alone does not meet these.

Agree in advance

• Discuss authorship at the start of a collaboration, not at submission.
• Record the agreement, even if only in an email.
• Revisit it if roles change substantially.

Contribution statements

• Many journals now require a who-did-what section.
• It is far more informative than author order alone.
• Write one even when the journal does not ask.

For junior researchers

• Ask about expectations when you are invited to join a project.
• Asking early is normal; silence causes the problem later.
• Keep a record of what you contributed as the work proceeds.

One thing worth remembering

Discuss authorship at the start of a collaboration and record it in an email.

That conversation takes ten minutes and can feel slightly awkward; the equivalent conversation in the week of submission costs months of goodwill and sometimes the collaboration itself.

Câu hỏi thường gặp