Who deserves to be named as an author?

It sounds like a straightforward question, yet authorship remains one of the most contested issues in research. Decisions about who receives credit are often influenced by disciplinary norms, power dynamics, unwritten rules and of course, research culture.

In this episode, Dr Emily Goodall explores four authorship dilemmas drawn from workshops with researchers and research professionals. As each scenario unfolds, you're invited to make your own judgement. Should they be an author? More importantly, what do the answers reveal about how we value different contributions to research?

Join the Conversation

We've turned the four dilemmas featured in the episode into a listener poll and are interested in your thoughts on authorship.

👉 Click here to submit your vote.

There are no right or wrong answers. We'll share the results a week after the episode launches so you can see if we can find a consensus among our listeners.

Key Takeaways

✅ Authorship is about responsibility as well as recognition: Being named as an author is not only about receiving credit for a piece of research, but also about taking responsibility for the integrity of the work.

✅ Authorship reflects our values: Questions of authorship touch on some of the most important issues in research culture, including fairness, recognition, accountability, power and inclusion. Decisions about who is named, and who is not, reflect what and who we value in the creation of knowledge.

✅ Transparency supports fairness: Open and ongoing conversations about authorship should include everyone involved in the research, helping to set clear expectations, recognise diverse forms of contribution, and ensure that attribution is fairly acknowledged.

Resources

UKRIO Authorship Integrity Toolkit: Practical guidance on authorship, authorship agreements, contributor discussions, and resolving disputes.

CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): A framework for describing and recognising different contributions to research.

ICMJE: Vancouver Guidelines: A widely recognised sets of authorship criteria, particularly in health, medical and biomedical research.

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Guidance, resources and discussion documents to support ethical decision-making in publication and authorship.

If you've enjoyed listening to this episode, please consider leaving a review on your favourite podcast app, via Podchaser, or by submitting an online review form.

✍ Podchaser

✍ Online Review Form

Follow us on Bluesky: @researcherdevleeds.bsky.social (new episodes are announced here), @openresleeds.bsky.social, @researchcultureuol.bsky.social

Connect to us on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here too).

If you would like to contribute to a podcast episode get in touch: [email protected]

If you have enjoyed listening to this episode, please consider leaving a review on your favourite podcast app, via Podchaser, or by submitting an online review form.

✍ Podchaser

✍ Online Review Form

Follow us on Bluesky: @researcherdevleeds.bsky.social (new episodes are announced here), @openresleeds.bsky.social, @researchcultureuol.bsky.social

Connect to us on LinkedIn: @ResearchUncoveredPodcast (new episodes are announced here too).

If you would like to contribute to a podcast episode get in touch: [email protected]

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be. You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

We all know authorship matters.

Publications are not only a mechanism for disseminating research findings, theories, and ideas. They are also one of the primary ways that researchers and research professionals receive recognition for their work, build their reputation, demonstrate expertise, and progress their careers. In academia, authorship is a form of currency.

Publications can influence promotion, recruitment, funding opportunities, professional visibility, and remain one of the key indicators of research excellence. But authorship isn't just about credit. It is also about accountability. When your name appears on a paper, preprint, book chapter, or data set, you're not only claiming recognition for the work, you're taking responsibility for it.

Given how much importance is attached to authorship, you'd expect there to be a clear and universally accepted set of rules about who qualifies as an author and how author order should be determined. Yet anyone who has spent time in research knows that that is not the case. Over the last year, I've delivered workshops on the ethics of authorship and attribution to researchers and research professionals across a wide range of disciplines, career stages, and roles.

One thing that's become clear is there is a lot of hidden conventions around authorship. I'd like you to take a moment to pause this podcast and think about the conventions that you're aware of. How is authorship decided? What contributions to knowledge are recognised with authorship versus acknowledgements?

Who gets to decide this? And what order are authors listed on research outputs? Most of these conventions aren't written down. They're learnt through experience, passed on by supervisors and colleagues, and embedded in the everyday practices of research. There are often discipline specific or even locally agreed traditions about how things are done.

There is not even a universally agreed definition of what contributions qualify as authorship. In some disciplines, author order reflects their contribution, often with the most senior researcher or research leader deliberately placed last. In others, authors are listed alphabetically or even randomly.

Some research groups routinely recognise a broad range of contributions through authorship, including, for example, technicians or community partners, while others take a much stricter approach. As research environments become increasingly complex, collaborative, and interdisciplinary, there is a greater diversity of people contributing to the production of knowledge.

We are seeing a trend towards increasing numbers of authors per publication. In some cases, this can be taken to the extreme, with publications listing more than 1,000 authors. The unwritten rules, expectations, and behaviours that shape decisions around authorship are part of research culture. They influence who gets recognised, whose contributions are valued, and whether people are able to question decisions or challenge unfair practice.

It's not that we're short of guidance on authorship. There are internationally recognised criteria such as the Vancouver guidelines that were developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which are widely used in biomedicine and underpin authorship policies across many journals.

These are often regarded as some of the strictest authorship criteria because they require authors to not only make a substantial contribution to the research, but to also contribute to drafting or critically revising the publication, approving the final version, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

All of these criteria must be met for them to be named as an author. The Committee on Publication Ethics takes a broader approach. It emphasises two key principles, making a substantial contribution to the work and being accountable for it. It also places strong emphasis on transparency around who contributed and in what capacity.

Alongside these, there are additional contributor approaches such as the CRediT taxonomy, which recognises a wide range of roles from conceptualisation and methodology of research through to software development, project administration, and supervision. There is also guidance from publishers, funders, learner societies, and institutions.

For example, the University of Leeds has fair attribution guidelines. So we're not short of guidance on authorship. The challenge is how guidance is interpreted and applied. Terms such as “substantial contribution” may sound clear, but deciding what counts as substantial is often a matter of interpretation.

If we take the Vancouver guidelines, critics have argued that they are much too restrictive, privileging those involved in drafting and revising manuscripts while potentially excluding people whose contributions are equally important and valid but take a different form. Authors are not only expected to take responsibility for their own contribution, but also to understand who is responsible for other parts of the work and have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors' contributions.

On one level, that seems entirely reasonable. Authorship comes with accountability. But in research that is increasingly collaborative, can every author genuinely assess the integrity of highly specialized work outside of their own expertise? These are questions that are not easy to answer, and that makes authorship more than a procedural issue, it's also an ethical one.

To explore these questions, let's look at four common authorship dilemmas that I use in my workshops. The scenarios are available to download in the show notes, so if you'd like to play along, pause the podcast, have a read, and decide what you think. You can also submit your answers using a Microsoft form that will also be in the show notes.

A week after this episode launches, I'll share the results in the show notes and on our social media channels. For each scenario, there is just one question: Should this person be recognised as an author? So let's begin. Scenario one: Maria is a community partner involved in a co-produced research project.

She helped shape the research question, contributed to the interview protocol, and provided valuable insights into interpreting the findings. She didn't write the paper but reviewed a few sections of the manuscript and provided feedback. So should Maria be recognised as an author? If you'd like to think about your answer before hearing my reflections, pause the podcast now Maria's scenario raises questions about what kinds of contributions we recognise through authorship.

Researchers often acknowledge community partners and very rarely include them as co-authors, even when they have made a substantial contribution to the work. Journal authorship criteria often act as a barrier to recognising this type of contribution, which raises the important question, is authorship primarily about writing or is it about contributing to the creation of knowledge?

For me, this scenario highlights the importance of discussing authorship early, particularly in co-produced and community engaged research. We shouldn't assume that community partners are uninterested in authorship or only want to be acknowledged. Expectations should be discussed openly and transparently with all contributors to research from the outset.

Scenario two. Professor Chen is a senior colleague. He reviewed a draft book chapter and provided feedback with some additional interpretations that were incorporated into the final version. He did not contribute to the design of the project, data collection analysis, or drafting of the original manuscript.

So should Professor Chen be recognised as an author? Pause the podcast if you would like time to consider your response. Professor Chen's scenario often generates differences of opinion. At the heart of the dilemma is the simple question, how substantial does a contribution need to be to warrant authorship?

Providing feedback, suggesting new interpretations, and strengthening the manuscript are valuable intellectual contributions. But does this amount to authorship or is it part of a normal exchange of ideas in academic life? The question often depends on disciplinary norms. In some fields, discussing theories, ideas, and draft manuscripts with colleagues is an expected part of the research process without any expectation of authorship.

In others, these types of intellectual contribution would be viewed as sufficient for inclusion as an author. This scenario also draws attention to the question of power. Authorship decisions do not take place in a vacuum. Early career researchers and PGRs may feel under pressure to include senior colleagues, particularly when authorship criteria leave room for interpretation.

In some areas, if you supervise a student, for example, you are expected to be included as an author whether you made a contribution to the work that has been published or not. In a competitive research environment where publications remain a key form of recognition and reward, there can be an incentive for individuals to overestimate the significance of their own contribution.

Ultimately, this scenario asks us to think carefully about fairness. How do we ensure that people receive appropriate recognition for genuine contributions while avoiding authorship becoming a reward for status or seniority? Scenario three is about John, a former PhD student who developed a theoretical framework for a project and conducted extensive archival research.

Before the manuscript was written, he graduated and left academia for a career elsewhere. His supervisor completed the analysis, interpretation of the findings, and wrote the paper. So should John be an author? Again, pause the podcast if you'd like some time to consider your answer. Of all the scenarios, this is perhaps the one where I've seen the greatest level of agreement.

Most participants in my workshops believe John should be an author. Their reasoning is usually straightforward. Without John's contribution, the research would not have happened. He developed the intellectual foundations of the project and generated much of the evidence that the publication is based on.

For many people, that feels like a clear case for authorship. However, most authorship guidance expects authors to review and approve the final manuscript and accept responsibility for the published work. This becomes more complicated when researchers move on. Their contribution doesn't disappear, but their ability to participate in the publication process may be limited.

This brings us to an important issue about consent. Even if a research team believes someone deserves authorship, it is generally not appropriate to name someone as an author without their knowledge and agreement. Individuals should have the opportunity to review the manuscript, agree to be listed as an author, and decide whether they are willing to take on that responsibility for the work.

Good authorship practices emphasize discussing and agreeing authorship throughout the research process. This is particularly important when you know a contributor might be leaving. There are also legal considerations. Under UK copyright law, individuals have protections against false attribution of authorship, so naming someone as an author without their consent or agreement could therefore raise not only research integrity concerns, but legal ones as well.

So what happens if John can't be contacted? Research teams often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of believing someone clearly deserves authorship and recognition for their work, but they can't get in contact with them. Situations like this do require careful consideration, and it's best to seek advice and speak to the journal editors about the most appropriate way forward.

I'm also often asked what happens if a person or researcher dies before a publication is complete. It is slightly different from a researcher who has simply become uncontactable. Publication ethics guidance generally allows a deceased person to remain an author if they made a substantial contribution to the work.

The key consideration is whether they contributed enough to qualify for authorship and whether the final publication remains broadly consistent with the version they were involved in developing. Journals will often acknowledge the situation with a note explaining that the author has passed away.

Scenario four, Fatima is a technical specialist who manages a specialist piece of equipment and has carried out key experiments for the project. Her expertise was essential to generating the data and ensuring its quality. However, she wasn't involved in writing the manuscript or interpreting the findings.

So should Fatima be recognised as an author? Just take a moment to think about your answer Fatima's scenario shines a light on a long-standing issue of visibility and recognition of technical expertise in research. In many research environments, technicians make essential contributions to projects. They have specialist skills, operate complex equipment, generate high quality data, and help ensure the reliability of research.

Yet despite the importance of these contributions, technicians have historically been under-recognized in research outputs, and there remains considerable variation in how technical contributions are credited across research teams and between disciplines. Accountability is one of the challenges here.

Fatima may be responsible for the integrity of the data that she generated, but she was not involved in analysing that data or developing the conclusions that emerge from it. This creates a tension between recognizing her contribution and defining the scope of her responsibility. Decisions about whether technicians are included as authors often reflects the values and norms of the research team.

Increasingly, initiatives such as the Technician Commitments and fair attribution guidelines are encouraging researchers to have those conversations up front. The aim is not just for fairer recognition for technicians but for better research practice through transparency about who has contributed to the project and how.

So what does this tell us about authorship? If there's one thing I've learned from running these workshops, it's that authorship is not always straightforward. Not once have we come to a consensus on those four scenarios and who should and shouldn't be an author. I learn something new every time I run the session.

But many authorship problems are preventable. A good place to start is by talking about authorship early. During the initial stages of a project, discuss what contributions are likely to qualify for authorship, what guidance or criteria you're gonna use, and where you plan to publish, including the authorship criteria for the journals that you're targeting.

As the research progresses, revisit these expectations, particularly if people join or leave the project and as their contributions change over time. Ultimately, good authorship practice depends on creating space for open and transparent conversations about contribution, credit, and responsibility.

Authorship should therefore be an ongoing conversation and not a one-off decision. There are also tools that can help support these conversations. The credit contributor taxonomy, for example, provides a way of describing who has contributed what, ensuring that important contributions are visible even if they don't resolve in authorship.

I'd also recommend formally documenting authorship discussions and agreements. This creates transparency, clarifies those expectations, and gives everyone a shared point of reference if there are any disagreements later on. Given the importance of authorship, disagreements do happen, and they're more common than you might think.

The UK Research Integrity Office reports that authorship issues account for a significant proportion of requests for advice that come through their advisory service. Their advice if you find yourself in dispute is to start by seeking an informal resolution where possible, but don't navigate this alone.

Seek support from a trusted colleague, supervisor, research leader, mentor, or mediator. Document those discussions and keep records of any decisions. If additional support is needed, you can contact your institution's research ethics or governance teams, research offices, or even trade union representatives who can provide that extra support and guidance.

Where necessary, concerns should be escalated through formal institutional processes. For example, the breaches of research integrity protocol or a research misconduct procedure. You could also discuss it with senior leaders within your institution or approach journal editors and publishers. One resource I particularly recommend is from the UK Research Integrity Office who have recently published an authorship integrity toolkit.

It includes practical guidance, authorship agreement templates, and advice on resolving disputes. I've included a link to this in the show notes. Preparing for this episode has reminded me why I find authorship such a fascinating research culture issue. On the surface, we're talking about names on papers, but the questions authorship raises goes far beyond the publications themselves.

They speak to many of the issues at the heart of research culture. How we recognize contributions, how we distribute credit and responsibility, how inclusive do we want to be in our collaborations, navigating power imbalances and influence, and ultimately, how do we maintain trust in the research record?

Ethical authorship is about much more than meeting a set of criteria. It's about creating a research culture where recognition is fair, transparent, and responsible. Thank you for listening to Research Culture Uncovered. If you completed the authorship poll, keep an eye on our social media channels and the show notes.

I'll share the results so we can see how much or how little agreement was reached between our listeners about those authorship dilemmas.

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand-new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five-star rating and written review, as it helps other research culturists find us.