scientific paper authorship criteria

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

Page Contents

Why Authorship Matters
Who Is an Author?
Non-Author Contributors
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

1. Why Authorship Matters

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors, but also that contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

Editors should be aware of the practice of excluding local researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) from authorship when data are from LMICs. Inclusion of local authors adds to fairness, context, and implications of the research. Lack of inclusion of local investigators as authors should prompt questioning and may lead to rejection.

Because authorship does not communicate what contributions qualified an individual to be an author, some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy. Such policies remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions, but leave unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship. The ICMJE has thus developed criteria for authorship that can be used by all journals, including those that distinguish authors from other contributors.

2. Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

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.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged—see Section II.A.3 below. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. We encourage collaboration and co-authorship with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by editors. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete disclosure forms.

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors. The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

3. Non-Author Contributors

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. "Clinical Investigators" or "Participating Investigators"), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," "provided and cared for study patients," "participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript").

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

Use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

4. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology

At submission, the journal should require authors to disclose whether they used artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work in the appropriate section if applicable, how they used it. For example, if AI was used for writing assistance, describe this in the acknowledgment section (see Section II.A.3). If AI was used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, authors should describe this use in the methods (see Section IV.A.3.d). Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship (see Section II.A.1). Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.

Next: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest

Keep up-to-date Request to receive an E-mail when the Recommendations are updated.

Subscribe to Changes

Office of the Provost

Guidance on authorship in scholarly or scientific publications, general principles.

The public’s trust in and benefit from academic research and scholarship relies upon all those involved in the scholarly endeavor adhering to the highest ethical standards, including standards related to publication and dissemination of findings and conclusions.

Accordingly, all scholarly or scientific publications involving faculty, staff, students and/or trainees arising from academic activities performed under the auspices of Yale University must include appropriate attribution of authorship and disclosure of relevant affiliations of those involved in the work, as described below.

These publications, which, for the purposes of this guidance, include articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication, presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding, must appropriately acknowledge contributions of colleagues involved in the design, conduct or dissemination of the work by neither overly attributing contribution nor ignoring meaningful contributions.

Financial and other supporting relationships of those involved in the scholarly work must be transparent and disclosed in publications arising from the work.

Authorship Standards

Authorship of a scientific or scholarly paper should be limited to those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful and substantive way to its intellectual content. All authors are responsible for fairly evaluating their roles in the project as well as the roles of their co-authors to ensure that authorship is attributed according to these standards in all publications for which they will be listed as an author.

Requirement for Attribution of Authorship

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. All co-authors should have been directly involved in all three of the following:

planning and contribution to some component (conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation) of the work which led to the paper or interpreting at least a portion of the results;
writing a draft of the article or revising it for intellectual content; and
final approval of the version to be published. All authors should review and approve the manuscript before it is submitted for publication, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. This guidance is intended to allow for such variation to disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Lead Author

The first author is usually the person who has performed the central experiments of the project. Often, this individual is also the person who has prepared the first draft of the manuscript. The lead author is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all other authors meet the requirements for authorship as well as ensuring the integrity of the work itself. The lead author will usually serve as the corresponding author.

Co-Author(s)

Each co-author is responsible for considering his or her role in the project and whether that role merits attribution of authorship. Co-authors should review and approve the manuscript, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

External Collaborators, Including Sponsor or Industry Representatives

Individuals who meet the criteria for authorship should be included as authors irrespective of their institutional affiliations. In general, the use of “ghostwriters” is prohibited, i.e., individuals who have contributed significant portions of the text should be named as authors or acknowledged in the final publication. Industry representatives or others retained by industry who contribute to an article and meet the requirements for authorship or acknowledgement must be appropriately listed as contributors or authors on the article and their industry affiliation must be disclosed in the published article.

Acknowledgements

Individuals who do not meet the requirements for authorship but who have provided a valuable contribution to the work should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication.

Courtesy or Gift Authorship

Individuals do not satisfy the criteria for authorship merely because they have made possible the conduct of the research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. Under no circumstance should individuals be added as co-authors based on the individual’s stature as an attempt to increase the likelihood of publication or credibility of the work. For example, heading a laboratory, research program, section, or department where the research takes place does not, by itself, warrant co-authorship of a scholarly paper. Nor should “gift” co-authorship be conferred on those whose only contributions have been to provide, for example, routine technical services, to refer patients or participants for a study, to provide a valuable reagent, to assist with data collection and assembly, or to review a completed manuscript for suggestions. Although not qualifying as co-authors, individuals who assist the research effort may warrant appropriate acknowledgement in the completed paper.

Senior faculty members should be named as co-authors on work independently generated by their junior colleagues only if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the experimental design, interpretation of findings and manuscript preparation.

Authorship Disputes

Determinations of authorship roles are often complex, delicate and potentially controversial. To avoid confusion and conflict, discussion of attribution should be initiated early in the development of any collaborative publication. For disputes that cannot be resolved amicably, individuals may seek the guidance of the dean of their school or the cognizant deputy provost in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences.

Disclosure of Research Funding and Other Support

In all scientific and scholarly publications and all manuscripts submitted for publication, authors should acknowledge the sources of support for all activities leading to and facilitating preparation of the publication or manuscript, including, but not limited to:

grant, contract, and gift support;
salary support if other than institutional funds. Note that salary support that is provided to the University by an external entity does not constitute institutional funds by virtue of being distributed by the University; and
technical or other support if substantive and meaningful to the completion of the project.

Disclosure of Financial Interests and External Activities

Authors should fully disclose related financial interests and outside activities in publications (including articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication), presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding.

In addition, authors should comply with the disclosure requirements of the University’s Committee on Conflict of Interest.

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

Access provided by Google Indexer
My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs

About The BMJ

Resources for authors
Forms, policies, and ethics
Authorship & contributorship

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ( ICMJE Recommendations 2018 ) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• 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 revising 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.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

We include only one corresponding author per article. Any further contribution details (eg, equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgement sections at the end of the article.

The BMJ requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. We recognise only natural persons over 18 years of age as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors.

The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and Medline lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, Medline will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

At The BMJ we want authors to assure us that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. In addition we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria but has not been included as an author.

When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)—see here and here .

AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

Contributorship

The BMJ lists contributors in two ways. Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper and, secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. This is a good place to include contributions by patients or members of the public who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles. We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. See Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Contributorship and guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and are sometimes hard to define for other articles. Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). For articles in The BMJ that do not report original research - such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate - please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s).

Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person's contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants. See Authorship is dying; long live contributorship.

Alteration to authorship or contributorship

Any change in authors and/or contributors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, change of order to the authors, or contributions being attributed differently. Any alterations must be explained to the editor. The editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Group authorship

If there is a very large number of authors we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. If they did, we may then require that the authors form a group whose name will appear in the article byline.

We appreciate that authors may be concerned that their work will not be properly recognised if they form a group, but this is unfounded. Medline guidance can handle group authorship and still give each individual due credit:

"When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation."

Key points:

• A Medline citation may contain an array of personal author names, group (or corporate) author names, and collaborator names. • Personal author names are included in Medline when the author names appear in the article byline, or are explicitly identified anywhere else in the text of the article as the authors or as the members of the writing group or writing committee for the article. • Group author names (also known as corporate, organization or collective names) are included in Medline when such names appear in the article byline. • When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation. • Collaborator names are entered for a Medline citation only when a group (corporate) author name is present for the citation. • More than one group name may appear for a citation, and a group name may appear along with personal author names. • For articles that represent a formal guideline or practice guideline, the name of the guideline-issuing body is entered as a group name for the Medline citation, even if that name does not appear in the article byline.

What this means for The BMJ 's authors

a) if authors form a group for the article's main byline they will also be listed individually:

• As collaborators in the article's Medline/PubMed record; • As authors in a group authorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com; and • As contributors in the contributorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com.

b) however, for The BMJ 's research articles with many authors, where those authors do not opt to form a group, we will not be able to publish a BMJ pico in the print issue of The BMJ . Such research articles will be for online only (thebmj.com) publication only.

Here's a research article in The BMJ with group authorship as it appeared on Medline, with all collaborators clearly listed as individuals:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20123835

And here's how the individual authors for that article were listed on thebmj.com:

1. What appeared at the top of the article and was dowloadable to citation manager:

Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries. Wei-Hong Zhang, Catherine Deneux-Tharaux, Peter Brocklehurst, Edmund Juszczak, Matthew Joslin, Sophie Alexander, on behalf of the EUPHRATES Group. BMJ 2010;340:c293, doi: 10.1136/bmj.c293 (Published 1 February 2010)

2. What appeared at the end of the article in an authorship statement:

The following are members of EUPHRATES (EUropean Project on obstetric Haemorrhage, Reduction, Attitudes, Trial and Early warning System): Sophie Alexander (project leader, Belgium), Diogo Ayres-de-Campos (Portugal), Istvan Berbik (Hungary), Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle (France), Gérard Bréart (France), Peter Brocklehurst (UK), Vicenç Cararach (Spain), Anna Maria Marconi (Italy), Catherine Deneux-Tharaux (France), Risto Erkkola (Finland), Mathias Klein (Austria), Jens Langhoff-Roos (Denmark), Alison Macfarlane (UK), Walter Prendiville (Republic of Ireland), Jos van Roosmalen (Netherlands), Babill Stray-Pedersen (Norway), Carolyn Troeger (Switzerland), Clare Winter (UK), and Wei-Hong Zhang (Belgium). Also see web extra for a list of people who helped in each country.

3. What appeared at the end of the article in the contributorship statement:

Contributors: W-HZ designed data collection tools, monitored data collection for the whole trial, wrote the statistical analysis plan, cleaned and analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. She is guarantor. CD-T implemented the trial in France, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. PB analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper. EJ wrote the statistical analysis plan, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. MJ designed data collection tools,, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. SA initiated the collaborative project, designed data collection tools, implemented the trial for the all countries, monitored data collection for the whole trial, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. All members of EUPHRATES designed the trial. Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Istvan Berbik, Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle, Vicenç Cararach, Risto Erkkola, Mathias Klein, Walter Prendiville, Jos van Roosmalen, Babill Stray-Pedersen, and Carolyn Troeger implemented the trial in, respectively, Portugal, Hungary, France, Spain, Finland, Austria, Republic of Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, and revised the draft paper. Gérard Bréart analysed the data and revised the draft paper. Alison Macfarlane and Clare Winter revised the draft paper.

Publishing model
Editorial staff
Advisory panels
Explore The BMJ
BMJ Student
How green is The BMJ?
Sources of revenue
Article types and preparation
Article submission
Competing interest policy
Copyright, open access, and permission to reuse
Patient consent and confidentiality
Research Ethics
BMJ papers audit
Guidance for new authors
BMJ Christmas issue
Resources for advertisers and sponsors
Resources for BMA members
Resources for media
Resources for subscribers
Resources for readers
Resources for reviewers
About The BMJ app
Poll archive
International jobs

This week's poll

Read related article

See previous polls

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

Undergraduate courses
Events and open days
Fees and finance
Postgraduate courses
How to apply
Postgraduate events
Fees and funding
International students
Continuing education
Executive and professional education
Courses in education
How the University and Colleges work
Term dates and calendars
Visiting the University
Annual reports
Equality and diversity
A global university
Public engagement
Give to Cambridge
For Cambridge students
For our researchers
Business and enterprise
Colleges & departments
Email & phone search
Museums & collections
Research Integrity
RI Guidance
Research Integrity Statement
Research Integrity Reports
RI Guidance overview
Good Research Practice Guidelines & Checklist overview
Good Research Practice Checklist overview
Good Research Practice Checklist

Guidelines on Authorship

Citing Blogs as Reference Sources
Open Research
UK Research Integrity Office
Ethics Policy
University Research Ethics Committee
UCAM REC Contacts
Applying for Ethical Review (flowchart) overview
Section 1 - Do I need University Ethical review?
Section 2 - futher guidance
Preparing an ethics application (resources) overview
Human Tissue Act 2004
Ethical Review of Overseas Research
Research Misconduct
Academic Research involving personal data
The Nagoya Protocol
Export Control
Trusted Research overview
Trusted Research Checklist
Assessing the Suitability of Partners
Securely Managing and Sharing Information
Commercial Application of Research
Travel and Conferences
Legislation
Further Information
Research Integrity (internal)
Research Integrity (external)
Contacts overview
Sources of Support
Good Research Practice Guidelines & Checklist
Research Integrity Advisory Panel

Authorship provides credit for an individual’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. There are no universally accepted standards for assigning authorship, and principles, customs and practices differ significantly from one discipline to another.

Responsibility for decisions regarding the authorship of publications lies with those who carried out the work reported in the publication. Researchers should be aware of the authorship practices within their own disciplines and should always abide by any requirements stipulated by journals as part of their instructions to authors.

Planning for authorship

Where no journal or discipline-specific norms apply, authorship criteria should be agreed by all investigators at an early stage of the research. Where possible, it is advisable to keep written records of decisions regarding authorship and these should be revisited where roles and contributions change over the lifecycle of the study.

Normally, an author is an individual judged to have made a substantial intellectual or practical contribution to a publication and who agrees to be accountable for that contribution. This would normally include anyone who has:

made a significant contribution to the conception or design of the project or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND/OR

drafted the work or reviewed/revised it critically for important intellectual content.

This is general guidance only and may not apply to all disciplines or journals which may set different standards.

Anyone listed as an author on a paper should approve the final version of the paper and accept responsibility for ensuring that he or she is familiar with its contents and can identify his or her contribution to it.

Individuals who contributed to the work, but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to be listed as authors should be properly acknowledged, usually in an acknowledgements section. In particular, the help of technical services staff (e.g. facility staff) should be acknowledged, if relevant.

Authors should be careful to ensure fair and proper acknowledgement of contributions from individuals who have not been listed as an author and make sure that acknowledgements fully reflect the level of the input of the contributor.

Further guidance

Researchers are advised to seek guidance on practice within their own discipline and to consult guidelines set by the funders of their research and the journals in which they hope to publish. Examples include:

Academy of Management, Code of Ethics , (February 2006)

British Educational Research Association, Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2011)

The British Psychological Society, Statement of Policy on Authorship and Publication Credit (July 2011)

Medical Research Council, Good Research Practice: Principles and Guidelines (July 2012)

Nature, Nature journals’ authorship policy (May 2014)

Wellcome Trust, Guidelines on Good Research Practice (November 2005)

More general guidance is provided by the following groups:

UK Research Integrity Office – this guidance note focuses on good practice in the authorship of research publications and covers issues relevant to all disciplines of research.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals – A set of guidelines that has been adopted by a number of medical journals.

Council of Science Editors, White Paper on Publication Ethics – A paper designed to offer general guidance across the sciences.

The Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE provides advice to publishers and editors on publication ethics and has produced a Code of Conduct for journal editors and guidelines on handling authorship disputes.

Albert, Tim and Elizabeth Wager (Committee on Publication Ethics), How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers (2003)

Council of Science Editors, White Paper on Publication Ethics (March, 2012)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals (December, 2013)

MRC, Good Research Practice: Principles and Guidelines (July, 2012)

Oxford University, Authorship and Publication

University of Cambridge, Guidelines on Good Research Practice

In This Section

SI Officers
Policy and Supporting Documents
Annual Reports
Closed Cases

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Authorship in Scientific and Scholarly Work Products

What roles and responsibilities do authors have when producing a scientific or scholarly work?
I am working on a large project with colleagues from different disciplines; how do I know who is an “author” when our contributions to the manuscript are so varied?
I provide administrative funds to support this scientific or scholarly work—why am I not listed as an author?
As a Principal Investigator on a group project, when should I discuss authorship of any scientific works we are planning to publish?
I am a researcher and was directed to perform a lot of basic work on a project. My supervisor drafted a manuscript but did not include me as an author. Don’t I merit being designated as an author?
A senior scientist in my laboratory insists on being included as an author on every manuscript that comes out of the laboratory, even those he/she is not substantially involved in. I am happy to acknowledge support, but does he/she qualify as an author?
Some technicians on my project provide substantial intellectual contributions to the work, but others simply operate equipment and produce basic data. Do I need to list all of them as authors on my publication?
I use the same method in my different projects; it is impossible to describe the technique without using the same phrases. Is it considered self-plagiarism to use the same language over again?
I would like to submit my recently published work (with slight variations) to other venues for distribution as a new work product. Is that acceptable?
I am a junior researcher, and I know that adding a well-known scientist as a co-author on my manuscript will increase the likelihood that a prestigious journal will accept it for publication. Is it acceptable to add his/her name as a co-author without explicitly involving them in the work?
In collaboration with a partner in the private sector, we are preparing a scientific work for publication. Our partners have been extensively involved in the project and meet the conditions for authorship. However, they now would like for our work to appear in the literature as a product of the bureau only. They have requested not to be listed as an author. Can I honor the request?
Why is authorship designation important to scientific integrity?
Are the FAQs here consistent with other sources? What other resources are there describing scientific integrity in authorship?
Who do I contact if I have questions about scientific integrity related to authorship, or comments about the concepts presented here? What roles and responsibilities do authors have when producing a scientific or scholarly work?

- securing funding for the scientific or scholarly work; - providing supervisory or administrative support for the scientific or scholarly work; - editing and proofreading of the scientific or scholarly work; - making available data collected from previously reported or published work or providing materials or specimens.

- USGS SM 502.10 Fundamental Science Practices: USGS Authorship of Scientific Information Products - EPA: Best Practices for Designating Authorship - Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM): Fostering Integrity in Research

Was this page helpful?

This page was not helpful because the content:

Please provide a comment

Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Guidelines on authorship and acknowledgement.

Disagreements may arise regarding who should be named as an author or contributor to intellectual work and the order in which individuals should be listed. These Guidelines are meant to serve as a set of standards that are shared by the academic community as a whole in order to help facilitate open communication through the adherence to common principles. These principles apply to all intellectual products, whether published or prepared for internal use or for broad dissemination. For a printable pdf of these guidelines, please click here .

Applicability

These Guidelines apply to all faculty, students postdoctoral researchers, and staff. Ownership of research data and materials resulting from Harvard University (“University”) research activities rests with the University (see Research Data Ownership Policy ).

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research, whether in a peer-reviewed journal or in an open access e-print or pre-print repository (e.g., arXiv, PsyArXiv), is a shared responsibility of all research team members but is primarily the responsibility of the Principal Investigator. The University recognizes that there are different standards across disciplines regarding authorship and the order in which authors are listed or acknowledged. Additionally, journals often specify their requirements in their guidance for authors and require attestations regarding individual authors intellectual contributions to the work. As a result, each laboratory, department, and/or school should engage in conversations regarding their own discipline-specific standards of authorship and, if needed, are encouraged to supplement the Guidelines herein with a description of these respective discipline-specific processes for deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors will be listed.

Note that these Guidelines are not intended for allegations related to research misconduct, defined as fabrication or falsification of data or plagiarism, which are subject to the Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research and reviewed by the Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC).

Criteria for Authorship

FAS and SEAS recommend that authorship consider the following criteria [1] ;

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND
To have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND
To have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to help ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved..

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. Many journals have adopted discipline-specific standards. The University expects that researchers will act in accordance with accepted practice of the relevant research community. This Guidance is intended to allow for such variation of best practices within a specific discipline, while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Acknowledgment Versus Authorship

Financial sponsorship or donation of gift funding does not constitute criteria for authorship. Individuals who do not meet the recommended requirements for authorship, but have provided a valuable contribution to the work, should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication. Authorship should not be conferred on those who have not made intellectual contributions to the work, or whose intellectual contributions are limited.

Implementation

Implementation of these Guidelines should include a commitment to collegiality, open communication, and expectation-setting throughout the research and scholarly process as well as the following considerations (see Authorship Best Practices Guidance (Addendum A) and Authorship Discussion Tool (Addendum B):

Research groups should discuss authorship credit/criteria, presentation of joint work, and future direction of the research as early as practical, frequently during the course of their work, and as research team members begin or end their involvement. The Principal Investigator should initiate these discussions; however, any collaborator should feel free to raise questions or seek clarity throughout the course of the collaboration. Each lab or group may consider having a written document in place as guidance.
All members of the research team are expected to adhere to good laboratory practices including maintaining an accurate laboratory notebook and annotating electronic files, as these practices will aide in identifying and clarifying individuals’ contributions to a project.
Disposition of collaborative data and research materials should be mutually agreed upon among collaborators as early as practical and in accordance with any data-sharing and retention requirements.
Laboratories, departments, centers, and programs supporting scholarly work should have available these Guidelines and a description of their discipline-specific processes of determining who should be an author, and the order in which authors are listed. These Guidelines should be included in the orientation of new research team members.

Authorship Disputes and Resolution

Disputes over authorship are best settled by the authors themselves; however, conflicts related to authorship may arise at any time during the research or scholarly process, resulting from differing perceptions of one’s contributions and resulting attribution of credit. It is expected that the resolution of disputes among collaborators will occur through open and collegial discourse, and mutual agreement is strongly encouraged. To facilitate this process, any prior decisions or discussions among authors, including verbal or written agreements between coauthors, should be reviewed and considered. These Guidelines and any documented customary practices in the relevant discipline should be applied, as appropriate. The authors should utilize the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) in order to guide authors through a robust series of questions that can be jointly discussed by the authors in an effort to resolve the dispute. Extending an invitation to a mutually agreed-upon party outside the group who is familiar with publication norms in the field to informally serve as a neutral facilitator may ensure that all viewpoints are considered and objectively applied. It is expected that most disputes will be resolved collegially among collaborators. Should an authorship dispute arise that includes a question of the veracity of underlying data supporting a manuscript or the misappropriation of the work of others , consultation with the Research Integrity Officer may be helpful to support resolution.

If the dispute cannot be resolved at the local level, it is the responsibility of the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair or their designee to take the lead in effecting a resolution of the dispute, assuming that the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair is not a direct party to the dispute and does not have a conflict of interest.

If strenuous, good faith efforts to resolve the dispute utilizing the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) are unsuccessful, one or more of the parties may then contact their FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean, sharing the completed Addendum B, which records the nature of the dispute and the efforts undertaken, and requesting further consideration. The FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean will review the submitted information and determine whether or not to appoint a committee to examine the case. As necessary, the Dean(s) will appoint a committee (and designate a committee chair), in consultation with the relevant FAS department(s)/SEAS area(s). The committee will consist of the following:

A[n additional] faculty member from the field or fields relevant to the dispute
Two faculty members from an adjacent field/department/area

FAS/SEAS Research Integrity Officer

If the case involves a graduate student, an appropriate (non-student) representative from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
If the case involves a postdoctoral researcher, an appropriate (non-postdoctoral) representative from the FAS Office of Postdoctoral Affairs

The committee will review the case and develop a recommendation to make to the authors. The committee chair will first inform the FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean of this recommendation and then inform the authors.

Related Resources

University Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property (IP Policy)

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Office of Student Affairs

Harvard Ombuds Office

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Authorship Resources

FAS/SEAS Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Harvard Medical School Authorship Guidelines

[1] As published in McNutt et al., Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) March 13, 2018 115 (11) 2557-2560. These criteria were adapted from the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) framework for broader applicability across scientific fields.

Filter by Policy Area

Faculty Research Policies
Effort Policies
Research Compliance Policies
Research Finances Policies
Proposal Submission Policies

Filter by Policy Type

FAS Policies
University Policies

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts

Submission guidelines

Format of articles, cover letter, revised manuscripts, tex/latex files, writing your manuscript, copy editing services, acknowledgements, author contributions, competing interests, data availability, ethics declarations, approval for animal experiments, approval for human experiments, consent to participate/consent to publish.

Supplementary information

Figure legends

General figure guidelines, figures for peer review, figures for publication, statistical guidelines, chemical and biological nomenclature and abbreviations, gene nomenclature, characterisation of chemical and biomolecular materials, registered reports.

Scientific Reports publishes original research in two formats: Article and Registered Report. For Registered Reports, see section below . In most cases, we do not impose strict limits on word count or page number. However, we strongly recommend that you write concisely and stick to the following guidelines:

Articles should ideally be no more than 11 typeset pages
The main text should be no more than 4,500 words (not including Abstract, Methods, References and figure legends)
The title should be no more than 20 words, should describe the main message of the article using a single scientifically accurate sentence, and should not contain puns or idioms
The abstract should be no more than 200 words

For a definitive list of which limits are mandatory please visit the submission checklist page .

Please do not include any references in your Abstract. Make sure it serves both as a general introduction to the topic and as a brief, non-technical summary of the main results and their implications. Abstract should be unstructured, i.e. should not contain sections or subheadings.

We allow the use of up to 6 keywords/key phrases that can be used for indexing purposes. These should represent the main content of the submission.

Your manuscript text file should start with a title page that shows author affiliations and contact information, identifying the corresponding author with an asterisk. We recommend that each section includes an introduction of referenced text that expands on the background of the work. Some overlap with the Abstract is acceptable. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. In response to emerging information, advice, guidance and policy around artificial intelligence (AI), we have created a dedicated AI section in our Editorial Policy page . Please familiarize yourself with this content and comply with relevant policies.

For the main body of the text, there are no specific requirements. You can organise it in a way that best suits your research. However, the following structure will be suitable in many cases:

Introduction
Results (with subheadings)
Discussion (without subheadings)

You should then follow the main body of text with:

References (limited to 60 references, though not strictly enforced)
Acknowledgements (optional)
Data availability statement (mandatory)
Additional Information (including a Competing Interests Statement)
Figure legends (these are limited to 350 words per figure)
Tables (maximum size of one page)

Please note, footnotes should not be used.

We do not automatically include page or line numbers in the materials sent to Editorial Board Members and reviewers. Please consider including those in your manuscript; this can help facilitate the evaluation of the paper and makes giving feedback on specific sections easier.

You may include a limited number of uncaptioned molecular structure graphics and numbered mathematical equations if necessary. Display items are limited to 8 ( figures and/or tables ). However, to enable typesetting of papers, we advise making the number of display items commensurate with your overall word length. So, for Articles of 2,000 words or less, we suggest including no more than 4 figures/tables. Please note that schemes should not be used and should be presented as figures instead.

Your submission must also include:

A cover letter
Individual figure files and optional supplementary information files

For first submissions (i.e. not revised manuscripts), you may incorporate the manuscript text and figures into a single file up to 3 MB in size. Whilst Microsoft Word is preferred we also accept LaTeX, or PDF format. Figures can be inserted in the text at the appropriate positions, or grouped at the end.

Supplementary information should be combined and supplied as a single separate file, preferably in PDF format.

A submission template is available in the Overleaf template gallery to help you prepare a LaTeX manuscript within the Scientific Reports formatting criteria.

In your cover letter, you should include:

The affiliation and contact information of your corresponding author
A brief explanation of why the work is appropriate for Scientific Reports
The names and contact information of any reviewers you consider suitable
The names of any referees you would like excluded from reviewing

Finally, you should state whether you have had any prior discussions with a Scientific Reports Editorial Board Member about the work described in your manuscript.

For revised manuscripts, you should provide all textual content in a single file, prepared using either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. Please note, we do not accept PDF files for the article text of revised manuscripts. Make sure you:

Format the manuscript file as single-column text without justification.
Number the pages using an Arabic numeral in the footer of each page.
Use the default Computer Modern fonts for your text, and the 'symbols' font for any Greek characters.
Supply any figures as individual files.
Combine and supply any Supplementary Information as a separate file, preferably in PDF format.
Include the title of the manuscript and author list in the first page of the Supplementary Information file.

If you do not wish to incorporate the manuscript text and figures into a single file, please provide all textual content in a separate single file, prepared using either Microsoft Word or LaTeX.

If you’re submitting LaTeX files, you can either use the standard ‘Article’ document class (or similar) or the wlscirep.cls file and template provided by Overleaf . For graphics, we recommend your use graphicx.sty. Use numerical references only for citations.

Our system cannot accept .bib files. If you prepare references using BibTeX (which is optional), please include the .bbl file with your submission (as a ‘LaTeX supplementary file’) in order for it to be processed correctly; this file is included automatically in the zip file generated by Overleaf for submissions. Please see this help article on Overleaf for more details.

Alternatively, you can make sure that the references (source code) are included within the manuscript file itself. As a final precaution, you should ensure that the complete .tex file compiles successfully on its own system with no errors or warnings, before submission.

Scientific Reports is read by a truly diverse range of scientists. Please therefore give careful thought to communicating your findings as clearly as possible.

Although you can assume a shared basic knowledge of science, please don’t expect that everyone will be familiar with the specialist language or concepts of your particular field. Therefore:

Avoid technical jargon wherever possible, explaining it clearly when it is unavoidable.
Keep abbreviations to a minimum, particularly when they are not standard.
If you must use an abbreviation, make sure you spell it out fully in the text or legend the first time it appears.
Clearly explain the background, rationale and main conclusions of your study.
Write titles and abstracts in language that will be readily understood by any scientist.

We strongly recommend that you ask a colleague with different expertise to review your manuscript before you submit it. This will help you to identify concepts and terminology that non-specialist readers may find hard to grasp.

We don’t provide in-depth copy editing as part of the production process. So, if you feel your manuscript would benefit from someone looking at the copy, please consider using a copy editing or language editing service. You can either do this before submission or at the revision stage. You can also get a fast, free grammar check of your manuscript that takes into account all aspects of readability in English.

We have two affiliates who can provide you with these services: Nature Research Editing Service and American Journal Experts . As a Scientific Reports author, you are entitled to a 10% discount on your first submission to either of these.

Claim 10% off English editing from Nature Research Editing Service

Claim 10% off American Journal Experts

Please note that the use of an editing service is at your own expense, and doesn’t ensure that your article will be selected for peer-review or accepted for publication.

We don't impose word limits on the description of methods. Make sure it includes adequate experimental and characterisation data for others to be able to reproduce your work. You should:

Include descriptions of standard protocols and experimental procedures.
Only identify commercial suppliers of reagents or instrumentation when the source is critical to the outcome of the experiments.
Identify sources for any kits you use in your procedures.
Include any experimental protocols that describe the synthesis of new compounds.
Use the systematic name of any new compound and put its bold Arabic numeral in the heading for the experimental protocol, indicating it thereafter by its assigned, bold numeral.
Describe the experimental protocol in detail, referring to amounts of reagents in parentheses, when possible (eg 1.03 g, 0.100 mmol).
Use standard abbreviations for reagents and solvents.
Clearly identify safety hazards posed by reagents or protocols.
Report isolated mass and percent yields at the end of each protocol.

If you’re reporting experiments on live vertebrates (or higher invertebrates), humans or human samples, you must include a statement of ethical approval in the Methods section (see our detailed requirements for further information on preparing these statements).

We don’t copy edit your references. Therefore, it’s essential you format them correctly, as they will be linked electronically to external databases where possible. At Scientific Reports , we use the standard Nature referencing style. So, when formatting your references, make sure they:

Run sequentially (and are always numerical).
Sit within square brackets.
Only have one publication linked to each number.
Only include papers or datasets that have been published or accepted by a named publication, recognised preprint server or data repository (if you include any preprints of accepted papers in your reference list, make sure you submit them with the manuscript).
Include published conference abstracts and numbered patents, if you wish.
Don’t include grant details and acknowledgements.

Sorry, we cannot accept BibTeX (.bib) bibliography files for references. If you are making your submission by LaTeX, it must either contain all references within the manuscript .tex file itself, or (if you’re using the Overleaf template) include the .bbl file generated during the compilation process as a ‘LaTeX supplementary file’ (see the "Manuscripts" section for more details).

In your reference list, you should:

Include all authors unless there are six or more, in which case only the first author should be given, followed by 'et al.'.
List authors by last name first, followed by a comma and initials (followed by full stops) of given names.
Use Roman text for Article and dataset titles, with only the first word of the title having an initial capital and written exactly as it appears in the work cited, ending with a full stop.
Use italics for book titles, giving all words in the title an initial capital.
Use italics for journal and data repository names, abbreviating them according to common usage (with full stops).
Use bold for volume numbers and the subsequent comma.
Give the full page range (or article number), where appropriate.

Published papers:

Printed journals Schott, D. H., Collins, R. N. & Bretscher, A. Secretory vesicle transport velocity in living cells depends on the myosin V lever arm length. J. Cell Biol . 156 , 35-39 (2002).

Online only Bellin, D. L. et al . Electrochemical camera chip for simultaneous imaging of multiple metabolites in biofilms . Nat. Commun . 7 , 10535; 10.1038/ncomms10535 (2016).

For papers with more than five authors include only the first author’s name followed by ‘ et al. ’.

Books: Smith, J. Syntax of referencing in How to reference books (ed. Smith, S.) 180-181 (Macmillan, 2013).

Online material:

Babichev, S. A., Ries, J. & Lvovsky, A. I. Quantum scissors: teleportation of single-mode optical states by means of a nonlocal single photon. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208066 (2002).

Manaster, J. Sloth squeak. Scientific American Blog Network http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2014/04/09/sloth-squeak (2014).

Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A., Nakhjiri, N. & Farahmand, A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801 (2014).

Please keep any acknowledgements brief, and don’t include thanks to anonymous referees and editors, or any effusive comments. You may acknowledge grant or contribution numbers. You should also acknowledge assistance from medical writers, proof-readers and editors.

You must supply an Author Contribution Statement as described in the Author responsibilities section of our Editorial and Publishing Policies .

Please be aware:

The author name you give as the corresponding author will be the main contact during the review process and should not change.
The information you provide in the submission system will be used as the source of truth when your paper is published.

You must supply a competing interests statement . If there is no conflict of interest, you should include a statement declaring this.

Your statement must be explicit and unambiguous, describing any potential competing interest (or lack thereof) for EACH contributing author. The information you provide in the submission system will be used as the source of truth when your paper is published.

Examples of declarations are:

Competing interests The author(s) declare no competing interests.

Competing interests Dr X's work has been funded by A. He has received compensation as a member of the scientific advisory board of B and owns stock in the company. He also has consulted for C and received compensation. Dr Y and Dr Z declare no potential conflict of interest.

You must include a Data Availability Statement in all submitted manuscripts (at the end of the main text, before the References section); see ' Availability of materials and data ' section for more information.

If your research includes human or animal subjects, you will need to include the appropriate ethics declarations in the Methods section of your manuscript.

For experiments involving live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates, your Methods section must include a statement that:

Identifies the institutional and/or licensing committee that approved the experiments, including any relevant details.
Confirms that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant named guidelines and regulations.
Confirms that the authors complied with the ARRIVE guidelines.

For experiments involving human subjects (or tissue samples), your Methods section must include a statement that:

Confirms that informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians.

Please note that:

Study participant names (and other personally identifiable information) must be removed from all text/figures/tables/images.
The use of coloured bars/shapes or blurring to obscure the eyes/facial region of study participants is not an acceptable means of anonymisation. For manuscripts that include information or images that could lead to identification of a study participant, your Methods section must include a statement that confirms informed consent was obtained to publish the information/image(s) in an online open access publication.

Supplementary Information

You should submit any Supplementary Information together with the manuscript so that we can send it to referees during peer-review. This will be published online with accepted manuscripts.

It’s vital that you carefully check your Supplementary Information before submission as any modification after your paper is published will require a formal correction.

Please avoid including any "data not shown" statements and instead make your data available via deposition in a public repository (see ' Availability of materials and data ' for more information).

If any data that is necessary to evaluate the claims of your paper is not available via a public depository, make sure you provide it as Supplementary Information.

We do not edit, typeset or proof Supplementary Information, so please present it clearly and succinctly at initial submission, making sure it conforms to the style and terminology of the rest of the paper.

To avoid any delays to publication, please follow the guidelines below for creation, citation and submission of your Supplementary Information:

You can combine multiple pieces of Supplementary Information and supply them as a single composite file. If you wish to keep larger information (e.g. supplementary videos, spreadsheets [.csv or .xlsx] or data files) as another separate file you may do so.

Designate each item as Supplementary Table, Figure, Video, Audio, Note, Data, Discussion, Equations or Methods, as appropriate. Number Supplementary Tables and Figures as, for example, "Supplementary Table S1". This numbering should be separate from that used in tables and figures appearing in the main article. Supplementary Note or Methods should not be numbered; titles for these are optional.

Refer to each piece of supplementary material at the appropriate point(s) in the main article. Be sure to include the word "Supplementary" each time one is mentioned. Please do not refer to individual panels of supplementary figures.

Use the following examples as a guide (note: abbreviate "Figure" as "Fig." when in the middle of a sentence): "Table 1 provides a selected subset of the most active compounds. The entire list of 96 compounds can be found as Supplementary Table S1 online." "The biosynthetic pathway of L-ascorbic acid in animals involves intermediates of the D-glucuronic acid pathway (see Supplementary Fig. S2 online). Figure 2 shows...".

Remember to include a brief title and legend (incorporated into the file to appear near the image) as part of every figure submitted, and a title as part of every table.

Keep file sizes as small as possible, with a maximum size of 50 MB, so that they can be downloaded quickly.

Supplementary video files should be provided in the standard video aspects: 4:3, 16:9, 21:9.

If you have any further questions about the submission and preparation of Supplementary Information, please email: [email protected] .

Please begin your figure legends with a brief title sentence for the whole figure and continue with a short description of what is shown in each panel. Use any symbols in sequence and minimise the methodological details as much as possible. Keep each legend total to no more than 350 words. Provide text for figure legends in numerical order after the references.

Please submit any tables in your main article document in an editable format (Word or TeX/LaTeX, as appropriate), and not as images. Tables that include statistical analysis of data should describe their standards of error analysis and ranges in a table legend.

Include any equations and mathematical expressions in the main text of the paper. Identify equations that are referred to in the text by parenthetical numbers, such as (1), and refer to them in the manuscript as "equation (1)" etc.

For submissions in a .doc or .docx format, please make sure that all equations are provided in an editable Word format. You can produce these with the equation editor included in Microsoft Word.

You are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any figures or illustrations that are protected by copyright, including figures published elsewhere and pictures taken by professional photographers. We cannot publish images downloaded from the internet without appropriate permission.

You should state the source of any images used. If you or one of your co-authors has drawn the images, please mention this in your acknowledgements. For software, you should state the name, version number and URL.

Number any figures separately with Arabic numerals in the order they occur in the text of the manuscript. Include error bars when appropriate. Include a description of the statistical treatment of error analysis in the figure legend.

Please do not use schemes. You should submit sequences of chemical reactions or experimental procedures as figures, with appropriate captions. You may include in the manuscript a limited number of uncaptioned graphics depicting chemical structures - each labelled with their name, by a defined abbreviation, or by the bold Arabic numeral.

Use a clear, sans-serif typeface (for example, Helvetica) for figure lettering. Use the same typeface in the same font size for all figures in your paper. For Greek letters, use a 'symbols' font. Put all display items on a white background, and avoid excessive boxing, unnecessary colour, spurious decorative effects (such as three-dimensional 'skyscraper' histograms) and highly pixelated computer drawings. Never truncate the vertical axis of histograms to exaggerate small differences. Ensure any labelling is of sufficient size and contrast to be legible, even after appropriate reduction. The thinnest lines in the final figure should be no smaller than one point wide. You will be sent a proof that will include figures.

Figures divided into parts should be labelled with a lower-case, bold letter ( a, b, c and so on) in the same type size as used elsewhere in the figure.
Lettering in figures should be in lower-case type, with only the first letter of each label capitalised.
Units should have a single space between the number and the unit, and follow SI nomenclature (for example, ms rather than msec) or the nomenclature common to a particular field.
Thousands should be separated by commas (1,000).
Unusual units or abbreviations should be spelled out in full or defined in the legend.
Scale bars should be used rather than magnification factors, with the length of the bar defined on the bar itself rather than in the legend.

In legends, please use visual cues rather than verbal explanations such as "open red triangles". Avoid unnecessary figures: data presented in small tables or histograms, for instance, can generally be stated briefly in the text instead. Figures should not contain more than one panel unless the parts are logically connected; each panel of a multipart figure should be sized so that the whole figure can be reduced by the same amount and reproduced at the smallest size at which essential details are visible.

At the initial submission stage, you may choose to upload separate figure files or to incorporate figures into the main article file, ensuring that any figures are of sufficient quality to be clearly legible.

When submitting a revised manuscript, you must upload all figures as separate figure files, ensuring that the image quality and formatting conforms to the specifications below.

You must supply each complete figure as a separate file upload. Multi-part/panel figures must be prepared and arranged as a single image file (including all sub-parts; a, b, c, etc.). Please do not upload each panel individually.

Please read the digital images integrity and standards section of our Editorial and Publishing Policies . When possible, we prefer to use original digital figures to ensure the highest-quality reproduction in the journal. When creating and submitting digital files, please follow the guidelines below. Failure to do so, or to adhere to the following guidelines, can significantly delay publication of your work.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1. Line art, graphs, charts and schematics

For optimal results, you should supply all line art, graphs, charts and schematics in vector format, such as EPS or AI. Please save or export it directly from the application in which it was made, making sure that data points and axis labels are clearly legible.

2. Photographic and bitmap images

Please supply all photographic and bitmap images in a bitmap image format such as tiff, jpg, or psd. If saving tiff files, please ensure that the compression option is selected to avoid very large file sizes. Please do not supply Word or Powerpoint files with placed images. Images can be supplied as RGB or CMYK (note: we will not convert image colour modes).

Figures that do not meet these standards will not reproduce well and may delay publication until we receive high-resolution images.

3. Chemical structures

Please produce Chemical structures using ChemDraw or a similar program. All chemical compounds must be assigned a bold, Arabic numeral in the order in which the compounds are presented in the manuscript text. Structures should then be exported into a 300 dpi RGB tiff file before being submitted.

4. Stereo images

You should present stereo diagrams for divergent 'wall-eyed' viewing, with the two panels separated by 5.5 cm. In the final accepted version of the manuscript, you should submit the stereo images at their final page size.

If your paper contains statistical testing, it should state the name of the statistical test, the n value for each statistical analysis, the comparisons of interest, a justification for the use of that test (including, for example, a discussion of the normality of the data when the test is appropriate only for normal data), the alpha level for all tests, whether the tests were one-tailed or two-tailed, and the actual P value for each test (not merely "significant" or "P < 0.05"). Please make it clear what statistical test was used to generate every P value. Use of the word "significant" should always be accompanied by a P value; otherwise, use "substantial," "considerable," etc.

Data sets should be summarised with descriptive statistics, which should include the n value for each data set, a clearly labelled measure of centre (such as the mean or the median), and a clearly labelled measure of variability (such as standard deviation or range).

Ranges are more appropriate than standard deviations or standard errors for small data sets. Graphs should include clearly labelled error bars. You must state whether a number that follows the ± sign is a standard error (s.e.m.) or a standard deviation (s.d.).

You must justify the use of a particular test and explain whether the data conforms to the assumptions of the tests. Three errors are particularly common:

Multiple comparisons: when making multiple statistical comparisons on a single data set, you should explain how you adjusted the alpha level to avoid an inflated Type I error rate, or you should select statistical tests appropriate for multiple groups (such as ANOVA rather than a series of t-tests).
Normal distribution: many statistical tests require that the data be approximately normally distributed; when using these tests, you should explain how you tested your data for normality. If the data does not meet the assumptions of the test, you should use a non-parametric alternative instead.
Small sample size: when the sample size is small (less than about 10), you should use tests appropriate to small samples or justify the use of large-sample tests.

You should identify molecular structures by bold, Arabic numerals assigned in order of presentation in the text. Once identified in the main text or a figure, you may refer to compounds by their name, by a defined abbreviation, or by the bold Arabic numeral (as long as the compound is referred to consistently as one of these three).

When possible, you should refer to chemical compounds and biomolecules using systematic nomenclature, preferably using IUPAC . You should use standard chemical and biological abbreviations. Make sure you define unconventional or specialist abbreviations at their first occurrence in the text.

You should use approved nomenclature for gene symbols, and employ symbols rather than italicised full names (for example Ttn, not titin). Please consult the appropriate nomenclature databases for correct gene names and symbols. A useful resource is Entrez Gene .

You can get approved human gene symbols from HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), e-mail: [email protected] ; see also www.genenames.org .

You can get approved mouse symbols from The Jackson Laboratory, e-mail: [email protected] ; see also www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen .

For proposed gene names that are not already approved, please submit the gene symbols to the appropriate nomenclature committees as soon as possible, as these must be deposited and approved before publication of an article.

Avoid listing multiple names of genes (or proteins) separated by a slash, as in 'Oct4/Pou5f1', as this is ambiguous (it could mean a ratio, a complex, alternative names or different subunits). Use one name throughout and include the other at first mention: 'Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1)'.

Scientific Reports is committed to publishing technically sound research. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be held to rigorous standards with respect to experimental methods and characterisation of new compounds.

You must provide adequate data to support your assignment of identity and purity for each new compound described in your manuscript. You should provide a statement confirming the source, identity and purity of known compounds that are central to the scientific study, even if they are purchased or resynthesised using published methods.

1. Chemical identity

Chemical identity for organic and organometallic compounds should be established through spectroscopic analysis. Standard peak listings (see formatting guidelines below) for 1H NMR and proton-decoupled 13C NMR should be provided for all new compounds. Other NMR data should be reported (31P NMR, 19F NMR, etc.) when appropriate. For new materials, you should also provide mass spectral data to support molecular weight identity. High-resolution mass spectral (HRMS) data is preferred. You may report UV or IR spectral data for the identification of characteristic functional groups, when appropriate. You should provide melting-point ranges for crystalline materials. You may report specific rotations for chiral compounds. You should provide references, rather than detailed procedures, for known compounds, unless their protocols represent a departure from or improvement on published methods.

2. Combinational compound libraries

When describing the preparation of combinatorial libraries, you should include standard characterisation data for a diverse panel of library components.

3. Biomolecular identity

For new biopolymeric materials (oligosaccharides, peptides, nucleic acids, etc.), direct structural analysis by NMR spectroscopic methods may not be possible. In these cases, you must provide evidence of identity based on sequence (when appropriate) and mass spectral characterisation.

4. Biological constructs

You should provide sequencing or functional data that validates the identity of their biological constructs (plasmids, fusion proteins, site-directed mutants, etc.) either in the manuscript text or the Methods section, as appropriate.

5. Sample purity

We request evidence of sample purity for each new compound. Methods for purity analysis depend on the compound class. For most organic and organometallic compounds, purity may be demonstrated by high-field 1H NMR or 13C NMR data, although elemental analysis (±0.4%) is encouraged for small molecules. You may use quantitative analytical methods including chromatographic (GC, HPLC, etc.) or electrophoretic analyses to demonstrate purity for small molecules and polymeric materials.

6. Spectral data

Please provide detailed spectral data for new compounds in list form (see below) in the Methods section. Figures containing spectra generally will not be published as a manuscript figure unless the data are directly relevant to the central conclusions of the paper. You are encouraged to include high-quality images of spectral data for key compounds in the Supplementary Information. You should list specific NMR assignments after integration values only if they were unambiguously determined by multidimensional NMR or decoupling experiments. You should provide information about how assignments were made in a general Methods section.

Example format for compound characterisation data. mp: 100-102 °C (lit. ref 99-101 °C); TLC (CHCl 3 :MeOH, 98:2 v/v): R f = 0.23; [α] D = -21.5 (0.1 M in n-hexane); 1 H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl 3 ): δ 9.30 (s, 1H), 7.55-7.41 (m, 6H), 5.61 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 1H), 5.40 (d, J = 5.5 Hz, 1H), 4.93 (m, 1H), 4.20 (q, J = 8.5 Hz, 2H), 2.11 (s, 3H), 1.25 (t, J = 8.5 Hz, 3H); 13 C NMR (125 MHz, CDCl 3 ): δ 165.4, 165.0, 140.5, 138.7, 131.5, 129.2, 118.6, 84.2, 75.8, 66.7, 37.9, 20.1; IR (Nujol): 1765 cm- 1 ; UV/Vis: λ max 267 nm; HRMS (m/z): [M] + calcd. for C 20 H 15 C l2 NO 5 , 420.0406; found, 420.0412; analysis (calcd., found for C 20 H 15 C l2 NO 5 ): C (57.16, 57.22), H (3.60, 3.61), Cl (16.87, 16.88), N (3.33, 3.33), O (19.04, 19.09).

7. Crystallographic data for small molecules

If your manuscript is reporting new three-dimensional structures of small molecules from crystallographic analysis, you should include a .cif file and a structural figure with probability ellipsoids for publication as Supplementary Information. These must have been checked using the IUCR's CheckCIF routine, and you must include a PDF copy of the output with the submission, together with a justification for any alerts reported. You should submit crystallographic data for small molecules to the Cambridge Structural Database and the deposition number referenced appropriately in the manuscript. Full access must be provided on publication.

8. Macromolecular structural data

If your manuscript is reporting new structures, it should contain a table summarising structural and refinement statistics. Templates are available for such tables describing NMR and X-ray crystallography data. To facilitate assessment of the quality of the structural data, you should submit with the manuscript a stereo image of a portion of the electron density map (for crystallography papers) or of the superimposed lowest energy structures (≳10; for NMR papers). If the reported structure represents a novel overall fold, you should also provide a stereo image of the entire structure (as a backbone trace).

Registered Reports are original research articles which undergo peer-review prior to data collection and analyses. This format is designed to minimize publication bias and research bias in hypothesis-driven research, while also allowing the flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings. If you intend to submit a Registered Report to Scientific Reports , please refer to detailed guidelines here .

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Authorship criteria

What is this about.

A well known criteria of authorship states that an author must have contributed substantially to a work’s: conception or design; data acquisition, analysis or interpretation; intellectual content development or critical review; final version approval; and integrity, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved. [1]

↑ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html . Accessed: June 2019.

Why is this important?

A successful career for researchers is often equivalent to the production and acceptance of peer-reviewed manuscripts. In fact, the number of publications a researcher has is commonly used as a parameter for career progression or funding acquisition.

Authorship matters because the entire research and publication process relies on trust. Authorship conveys significant privileges, responsibilities, and legal rights, and it is fair that only those who have actively participated in the work should benefit from the positive aspects of being an author and being accountable for all aspects of the research.

For whom is this important?

What are the best practices.

Practice guidelines are diverse and vary according to the scientific field. Rather than rules, professional bodies provide guidelines or recommendations and most guidelines leave some room for interpretation.

The best-known authorship guideline comes from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The ICMJE recommends that an author should meet all four of the following criteria: [1] ‘‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work,’’ [2] ’’Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content,’’ [3] ‘‘Final approval of the version to be published,’’ and [4] ‘‘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’’. The committee further designates that in addition to excluding a scholar who has not met all four criteria, any scholar who meets all four should be included as an author. Following the authorship criteria, the ICMJE expressly describes contributions that should be included as an acknowledgment, and not authorship (i.e., funding, supervision, writing assistance, technical or language editing, proofreading). [5]

The Council of Science Editors describes authors as “individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, an author should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All authors should review and approve the final manuscript.” [6]

Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics

Guidelines in the physical and mathematical sciences offer somewhat less precise definitions, such as this from the American Physical Society: “Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors.” [7]

The American Sociological Association includes the following in its Code of Ethics: “(a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” [8]

↑ Council of Science Editors. CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications: 2.2 authorship and authorship responsibilities. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ Accessed: June 2019.
↑ The American Physical Society. Guidelines for professional conduct. Available at: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm Accessed: June 2019.
↑ American Sociological Association. Code of ethics and policies and procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Available at: http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf Accessed: June 2019.

The Embassy Editorial team, The Embassy editorial team, Iris Lechner, Mohammad Hosseini, Vicko Tomić, Anna Catharina Armond contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Mar 25, 2021

Other information

Virtues & values.

Accountability

Good Practices & Misconduct

inappropriate autorship

Your platform for research integrity and ethics

Subscribe " name="subscribe" id="mc-embedded-subscribe" class="button">

The EnTIRE and VIRT2UE projects have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research programme under grant agreements N 741782 and N 787580.

April 2, 2024

Are Your Solar Eclipse Glasses Fake? Here’s How to Check

You’re going to want to guard your eyes from the sun using legitimate protective gear

By Sarah Sloat

Female Hand Holding Special Safety Glasses With Tinted Lenses Through Which You Can See The Solar Eclipse

Ryhor Bruyeu/Alamy Stock Photo

This article is part of a special report on the total solar eclipse that will be visible from parts of the U.S., Mexico and Canada on April 8, 2024.

A day after the American Astronomical Society (AAS) announced that there were no signs of unsafe eclipse glasses or other solar viewers on the market in early March, astronomer and science communicator Rick Fienberg received an alarming call.

Fienberg is project manager of the AAS Solar Eclipse Task Force, which is busy preparing for the total eclipse over North America on April 8 . He’s the creator of a list of vetted solar filters and viewers that will protect wearers’ eyes as they watch the moon move in front of the sun. When a solar eclipse last crossed a major swath of the U.S. in 2017, Fienberg and his team spotted some counterfeit glasses entering the marketplace—imitations that distributors claimed were manufactured by vetted companies. Testing at accredited labs indicated that many counterfeits were actually safe to use, however. This led the task force to describe such eclipse glasses as “misleading” but not “dangerous” in a March 11 statement meant to reassure the public.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

But then Fienberg’s phone rang. The caller was “a guy who had bought thousands of eclipse glasses from a distributor who had been on our list at one point,” Fienberg says. “Those glasses were not safe. They were no darker than ordinary sunglasses.” Legitimate eclipse glasses are at least 1,000 times darker than the darkest sunglasses you can buy.

Fienberg contacted Cang n an County Qiwei Craft , a Chinese factory that he knew manufactured safe glasses and had—in the past—sold them to the distributor in question. But this time, Fienberg says, factory representatives told him they hadn’t sold to that distributor in a long while. “That’s when we switched from being concerned about only counterfeits to being concerned about actual fakes,” Fienberg says.

The AAS does not have a confident estimate of how many fake or counterfeit glasses are for sale out there. And though Fienberg doesn’t think this is a widespread problem, the situation is an “iceberg kind of concern,” he says, because there are likely more examples than the ones he knows about. While counterfeit glasses may still be safe to use, completely fake glasses could put wearers in serious danger.

If you’re viewing the upcoming eclipse, there are specific indicators you can look for when evaluating products for safety—and ways to test glasses before you stare at the sun.

The standard for solar eclipse viewers

On April 8 viewers within a 115-mile-wide band stretching across Mexico and the U.S. into eastern Canada will experience a total solar eclipse : what happens when the moon passes directly between the sun and Earth, completely blocking the face of our star. Outside of this band, people in much of North America will be able to see a partial eclipse.

“It’s a beautiful alignment,” says Michelle Wooten, an assistant professor of astronomy education at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. But Wooten has observed that people are often careless when viewing eclipses—she says she has seen people look directly at the sun with no protection at all . According to NASA , the only safe time to observe a total eclipse without a solar viewer or filter is during the fleeting moments of totality, when the moon completely covers the sun and the lunar shadow falls on Earth—and as soon as even a bit of sun emerges, one should immediately stop looking. Totality lasts around 3.5 to 5.5 minutes . It is never safe to view a partial eclipse directly without a special eye guard.

This is where safe solar eclipse glasses or other viewers can help. Those that comply with the ultraviolet, visible and infrared light transmittance requirements have a designation: ISO 12312-2 :2015 , a safety standard adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 2015 . ISO standards are determined by a nongovernmental body of experts. An ISO standard isn’t legally enforceable , but it’s meant to be a mark of assurance when manufacturers comply.

Hin Cheung , a clinical assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Optometry, recommends that eclipse chasers looking for glasses check out the AAS list of legitimate solar viewers . But because anyone can print the ISO number onto their viewers and claim those products are safe, Cheung points out that one can’t necessarily trust online sellers making that assertion without cross-referencing the AAS list. Meanwhile don't believe any sellers who say their glasses are “NASA-approved.” The federal space agency doesn’t endorse commercial products.

“If you were to use a fake viewer that does not meet that [ISO] standard, then unsafe levels of solar radiation could enter your eye and cause damage,” Cheung says. “That damage could also cause permanent changes to your vision.” Even a brief peek at the sun can temporarily or permanently burn the macula, the part of the retina involved in seeing what’s directly in front of you. It’s also critical to check eclipse glasses for scratches or tears. To avoid eye injury, never look at the sun through a camera lens, telescope or other optical lens without a solar filter designed for such tools.

If you don’t have solar glasses, there are ways to safely enjoy the eclipse with indirect views. They include methods such as using a pasta colander as a pinhole projector , which Wooten recommends as an easy and fun option for projecting an image of the sun onto the ground or other surface.

How to test whether eclipse glasses are safe

While lab tests are the best way to determine whether glasses meet the ISO standard, Fienberg says there is a three-part test people can do at home if they’re concerned their eclipse viewers aren’t up to the task.

First, put your glasses on indoors and look around. The only things you should be able to see are very bright lights, such as a halogen bulb or a smartphone flashlight.

Then, if the glasses pass the indoor test, bring them outside—but don’t look at the sun just yet. Look around: it should be too dark to see distant hills, trees or even the ground.

If that second test is passed, keep the glasses on and quickly glance at the sun. You should comfortably see a bright, sharp-edged round disk. If your glasses pass all three tests, they are probably safe to wear. Still, Fienberg points out that it’s best to use them for only a few seconds every minute or so during the eclipse; this cautious approach is how they’re intended to be used. And if you don’t trust your glasses for April’s celestial event, you could try to find a reliable pair in the next two decades. “You only have to wait 20 years for another really good eclipse year in the [United] States,” Fienberg says.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
BMJ Glob Health
v.6(10); 2021

Using scientific authorship criteria as a tool for equitable inclusion in global health research

Nadia adjoa sam-agudu.

1 International Research Center of Excellence, Institute of Human Virology Nigeria, Abuja, Nigeria

2 Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Cape Coast School of Medical Sciences, Cape Coast, Ghana

3 Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Seye Abimbola

4 School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

5 Julius Global Health, University Medical Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Associated Data

There are no data in this work.

Introduction

In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) created a standardised set of criteria for authorship. 1 The central principle underlying these criteria is that authorship is an intellectual activity that entails contributions to ideas (eg, conceptualising a study and framing the research question), analyses (eg, formulating the analysis approach/framework and/or performing the actual analysis), writing (and revising the manuscript) and ownership (of the study or research project). The ICMJE criteria have been broadly adopted by biomedical and health journals, including those focused on global health research. They have also been revised over time to accommodate emerging issues and concerns: for example, recognising author roles such as data acquisition (2000 revision) 2 and the need for all authors to be accountable for the work (2013 revision). 3

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on meeting all the following four criteria 4 :

‘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 revising 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’.

While these guidelines are widely accepted, compliance is limited and interpretations vary. 5–8 They are also open to being used to exclude or to obscure the contribution of some authors, 8–10 rather than an opportunity for inclusion and transparency. In this editorial, we highlight how the ICMJE criteria can be used proactively for author inclusion and not exclusion, in line with the recently published ‘ Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship of research publications from international partnerships ’. 11 We highlight the context of applying the ICMJE criteria in research partnerships between high-income country (HIC) and low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) teams. The power imbalances in such collaborations are well documented, in that HIC participants typically have more decision-making power based largely on their institutional resources and acquisition of funding. 11–13 In this context, leaders of such research collaborations should pay particular attention to the ‘or’s in ICMJE criteria 1 and 2.

Criterion 1

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work.

The first criterion is explicit about the broad range of contributions that qualify an individual as an author. While ICMJE does not define what constitutes substantial contribution under criterion 1, in the context of authorship, ‘substantial’ has been interpreted to mean ‘contribution without which a part of the work or even the entire work could not have been completed’. 14 It is a condition that local team members will readily satisfy, given the range of options for contribution under criterion 1. If the study was partially or fully conceptualised and designed in the study setting (as ought to be the case), and/or people in those settings were involved in data acquisition (as is most certainly the case) and/or analysing and interpreting the data, then it is highly likely that most people who fulfil this criterion are local. Indeed, this is not a criterion that is typically used to disqualify potential local authors.

Where LMIC authors often lack robust contribution—either by intention or circumstance—is data analysis. For example, LMICs score significantly lower than HICs in the World Bank’s statistical capacity indicators. 15 Local team members may not be invited to participate, based on conscious biases or assumptions (justified or not) that they lack the requisite skills. Even where capacity is truly limited, this should be seen as an opportunity for capacity-building by both LMIC and HIC experts on the team. This facilitates authorship inclusion—by ensuring that local team members are actively involved in data analysis, contributing as they enhance their skills. However, in addressing capacity-building needs in HIC–LMIC collaborations, one should be careful not to assume that capacity deficit lies exclusively among LMIC team members, or that HIC team members exclusively possess the requisite skills.

Data interpretation in international research partnerships ought to be a collective exercise in which local team members are considered to have privileged knowledge, given their greater contextual exposure and expertise regarding the topic under study. 16 This knowledge can be applied during data analysis and is also relevant to the framing of the research question, which determines what data to acquire and analyses to conduct. Hence, interpretation is integral to all the other elements of criterion 1—that is, conception, design, data acquisition and data analysis. Where local team members lack the skills to fully interpret the data, this too should be seen as an opportunity for capacity-building.

As the new ‘normal’ in the COVID-19 era demonstrates, these tasks (data analysis, interpretation and capacity-building for both) can be conducted virtually. Aspects of data analysis and interpretation can be completed and documented via email or recorded virtual team meetings such as conference calls. Relevant input during these virtual meetings can then be considered ICMJE criteria-fulfilling author contributions from local (and non-local) team members. Team leadership can proactively structure meeting agendas along ICMJE authorship requirements, including and beyond criterion 1.

Criterion 2

Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

The second criterion is easily used to exclude, where an invitation is not extended to deserving LMIC team members to contribute. Reasons for non-invitation from team leadership may include perceived lack of writing or intellectual capacity 12 or lack of interest among LMIC team members, who may also undervalue scientific authorship or value it differently from HIC members. 17 This is another capacity-building opportunity, to build skills and thus justify inclusion. To ensure that those who meet criterion 1 have ample opportunity to meet criterion 2, avenues by which the latter may be fulfilled can be expanded. To include typically excluded LMIC authors, these avenues may involve convening ‘author contribution focus groups’, using semistructured questionnaire-guided group discussions which may be recorded and then transcribed. These contributions may be abstracted by more experienced authors in the evolving manuscript. More preferably, less experienced authors may be mentored to lead the writing phase.

‘Author contribution focus groups’ and similar strategies may work particularly well for the discussion section of a manuscript, which involves contextual interpretation of results. Alternatively, one-on-one calls may be held between less experienced and more experienced writers to capture the former’s input and discuss framing of the narratives and arguments in the manuscript. These approaches stem from the notion that authorship contributions are not limited to ‘putting pen to paper’; that writing itself is an interpretive process, that much of the framing of a manuscript occurs during writing, and that this interpretive process could be conducted virtually and/or verbally. Such approaches allow for expanded capture of authors’ intellectual input, especially for those still learning scientific writing, or who may not be highly literate in the (typically European) language of the manuscript. The use of free online translation tools may facilitate contribution where language differences constitute a barrier. 8

There is an additional issue of the interest and willingness of LMIC partners to be involved in writing or included as authors. In some cases, this is due to less emphasis on scientific authorship for career progression (especially in non-research health fields), or because they are so involved in non-research career activities that they have little time and resources to invest in academic writing and publishing. In such cases, it should be the responsibility of team leadership to persuade potential local authors that it may be in the best interest of such local team members to fulfil author criteria and be named as such. If they fulfil criterion 1, team leadership can provide opportunities and support for LMIC members to additionally fulfil criteria 2–4 and become named contributing authors.

Criterion 3

Final approval of the version to be published.

Facilitating inclusion via criteria 1 and 2 can be time-intensive. Research and authorship teams must be sufficiently patient to accommodate the time needed for experienced members to support and build the capacity of less experienced local team members to learn and to make meaningful contributions per the ICMJE criteria. This same consideration holds for criterion 3, which involves the required time and processes for final manuscript approval and sign-off for each author. Language differences may be an issue, in which case online translation tools or live translation may be used to facilitate equitable completion of this criterion. All team members may have limited availability, but local team members may be more likely to have limited time to dedicate further to research activities. As for criterion 2, fulfilling criterion 3 may require LMIC team members being given ample opportunity to sign off on the final manuscript version. The sign-off could be conducted verbally, 8 by email or other forms of electronic communication—for example, via a video conference call with the final version shared on-screen.

Criterion 4

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.

A relatively recent addition to the ICMJE criteria, criterion 4 speaks to the willingness of authors to cooperate among themselves and with journal editors to investigate and resolve any potential allegations of misconduct related to the work. Hence, meeting criterion 4 is up to every individual who has already met criteria 1, 2 and 3. It reflects the extent to which all such individuals are confident in the integrity of their and fellow authors’ work, that they are able to be publicly responsible for it, and to answer questions that may arise regarding issues of integrity about any aspect of the work, even when the questions are not about their own specific contribution. 18 It means that each author is aware of who did what. 19 Meeting criterion 4 is also a signal of ownership. If local LMIC authors do not feel they are able to fulfil criterion 4, it indicates they do not sufficiently own the work, which in turn indicates they did not sufficiently own the process and the research that led to the publication.

The ‘and’ condition in the ICMJE criteria

It has been argued that the ‘and’ condition (that all authors must fulfil all four criteria) encourages or provides excuse for exclusion; 8–10 for example, the exclusion of LMIC authors, who may easily fulfil criterion 1, but who may not have the skills, the willingness and/or the opportunity to fulfil criteria 2–4. 8 What the ‘and’ condition does, however, is signal that the intellectual function of authorship has both an interpretive dimension (ie, it is not enough to fulfil criterion 1, it is also essential to participate in the interpretive element of the writing process in criteria 2 and 3) and an accountability dimension (ie, signing off on the final version and being willing and able to take responsibility for the work in criteria 3 and 4). The ‘interpretation’ element in criterion 1, which is made more comprehensive by layered input in criteria 2 and 3, is an essential component of authorship that must be preserved. Contrary to being an excuse for exclusion, the ‘and’ condition imposes a requirement to be comprehensively inclusive.

Exclusion of local LMIC authors may then be considered rooted in an exclusionary interpretation (intended or unintended) of the ICMJE criteria. This casts reasonable doubt on the inclusiveness of the work from conception to publication, and suggests interpretive marginalisation of local LMIC authors—which then also casts doubt on the validity of the work. 16 Beyond scientific content, rejections or ‘revise and resubmit’ decisions from journals should also be based on assessments for exclusionary authorship, particularly as pertains local authors in HIC–LMIC global health research collaborations. We encourage journals to take this seriously when considering which manuscripts to send out for peer review or to accept for publication. Publishing manuscripts that fail to demonstrate substantial local ownership and contribution should be a rare exception and no longer commonplace. Such studies smack of parachute research, may not meet local needs and are unlikely to be locally useful. 20

The widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria can be used inclusively to minimise parachute research. We welcome the ‘ Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship of research publications from international partnerships ’. 11 In so doing, we call on biomedical and health journals to require, along with published manuscripts, the copublication of research team ‘reflexivity’ statements, structured to highlight considerations (or lack thereof) for local LMIC team members’ ownership of the research, and promote inclusive authorship. However, we recognise that concerns of exclusion are also applicable to internal collaborations within HICs or LMICs. Like international–local exclusions, partnerships within countries also perpetuate authorship exclusion of local actors—for example, data collectors, junior researchers, non-academics and members of marginalised social groups (based on gender, class, caste, income, race, etc). Authorship exclusion within countries (HIC or LMIC) deserves similar attention and should be an important next step for consideration among biomedical and health journals.

Twitter: @NASAdoc, @seyeabimbola

Funding: SA is currently supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia through an Overseas Early Career Fellowship (APP1139631).

Competing interests: SA is the Editor in Chief of BMJ Global Health

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement

Ethics statements, patient consent for publication.

Not required.

Environmental Science: Nano

2023 outstanding papers published in the environmental science journals of the royal society of chemistry.

a Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China

b Carnegie Mellon University Department of Chemistry, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

c Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

d Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK

e Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal

f Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA

g Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

A graphical abstract is available for this content

Graphical abstract: 2023 Outstanding Papers published in the Environmental Science journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry

This article is part of the themed collection: Outstanding Papers 2023 – Environmental Science: Nano

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

Z. Cai, N. Donahue, G. Gagnon, K. C. Jones, C. Manaia, E. Sunderland and P. J. Vikesland, Environ. Sci.: Nano , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4EN90012J

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

IMAGES

💌 Author research paper example. Defining authorship in your research
Criteria for authorship accepted by 43 respondents
PPT
14- Criteria of authorship & order of authors, ORCID, affiliations: How
(PDF) What Is Authorship, and What Should It Be? A Survey of Prominent
Participants' Knowledge on Authorship Guidelines

VIDEO

ICMJE Guidelines for Writing a Medical Research Paper
Confused about authorship on academic papers? Get some TIPS and HINTS from this USEFUL short vid 👍 🆗
PUBLISHING AN OBGYN PAPER IN A JOURNAL
Authorship for sale: A phenomenon on scientific publication
Authorship
How to Submit a Paper and Check the Status

COMMENTS

Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the ...
Authorship
Authorship. Authorship provides credit for a researcher's contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfil the criteria below (adapted from McNutt et al ...
Authorship policies of scientific journals
INTRODUCTION. Authorship on scientific papers is one of the most contentious issues in research ethics. 1-5 Because authorship is important for career advancement, peer recognition and prestige, disputes often arise about who may be named as an author on a paper. One of the factors driving the steady increase in the number of authors per paper since the 1960s is the desire to receive ...
How to navigate authorship of scientific manuscripts
Authorship should be determined by the lead author once the research is complete and the team is about to start writing the manuscript. For this to work correctly, however, there need to be clear guidelines in the lab based on a field-level understanding of what it means to see a name on a manuscript.
Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers
This article overviews authorship criteria, author identifiers and online profiling platforms, common instances of inappropriate authorship, and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers, and editors of scholarly journals. This is the first review in a series of articles devoted to scientific writing and editing.
Guidance on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications
Authorship Standards. Authorship of a scientific or scholarly paper should be limited to those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful and substantive way to its intellectual content. All authors are responsible for fairly evaluating their roles in the project as well as the roles of their co-authors to ensure that authorship is ...
Authorship & contributorship
Authorship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE Recommendations 2018) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data ...
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article
PMC is a free archive of biomedical and life sciences literature that provides access to millions of articles. This article discusses the ethical issues and guidelines for authors who want to publish their research in PMC. It covers topics such as authorship, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, data sharing, and peer review.
Authorship: Who's on first?
Such disputes are common. "As authorship is our academic currency, it tends to be a hot-button topic," says Karen Peterson, scientific ombudsman at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center ...
PDF Guidelines on Authorship in Scholarly or Scientific Publications
suggestions, are activities unlikely to meet criteria for authorship. Although not qualifying as co-authors, individuals who assist with the research effort in these ways may warrant appropriate acknowledgement in the completed paper or presentation. Ghost authorship is intentionally not identifying as an author someone who made substantial
The Ethics of Authorship: Policies for Authorship of Articles ...
A large percentage of scientific journal articles have multiple authors. The commonly accepted guideline for authorship is that one must have substantially contributed to the development of the paper. A substantial contribution includes, but is not limited to, satisfying one or more of the criteria discussed below.
(PDF) Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers
When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90% ...
Guidelines on Authorship
Council of Science Editors, White Paper on Publication Ethics - A paper designed to offer general guidance across the sciences. The Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE provides advice to publishers and editors on publication ethics and has produced a Code of Conduct for journal editors and guidelines on handling authorship disputes. Sources
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Authorship in Scientific and
Authorship should not be provided to a senior individual who expects or demands it just because he/she is in a position of authority; anyone listed as an author should provide a substantial intellectual contribution to the scientific work (refer to FAQ 1). Providing authorship in this way is known as "honorary" authorship and is a common abuse.
PDF FACTSHEET Authorship
Authorship Naming authors on a scientific paper ensures that the appropriate individuals get credit, and are accountable, for the research. Deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's relationship to their work is considered to be a form of misconduct that undermines confidence in the reporting of the work itself.1
Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement
Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement. Determining authorship is an important component of upholding the integrity of the research and scholarly enterprise and serves as an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. Only by honestly reflecting the contribution of all members of the research team can ...
Authorship: from credit to accountability
The credit received by people doing the work becomes diluted by the inclusion of many authors with minor, if any, contributions. Eventually this 'free lunch' strategy undermines the value of being named on a scientific paper . Authorship guidelines should be updated to adapt to the growing trend of collaborative research.
PDF MBUDS OFFICE
Discussions of authorship in academic medical centers usually concern published reports of original, scientific research. However, the same principles apply to all intellectual products: words or images; in paper or electronic media; whether published or prepared for local use; in scientific disciplines or the
Defining authorship in your research paper
It is very important to make sure people who have contributed to a paper, are given credit as authors. And also that people who are recognized as authors, understand their responsibility and accountability for what is being published. There are a couple of types of authorship to be aware of. Co-author. Any person who has made a significant ...
Submission guidelines
For papers with more than five authors include only the first author's name followed by 'et al.'. Books: Smith, J. Syntax of referencing in How to reference books (ed. Smith, S.) 180-181 ...
Authorship criteria
A well known criteria of authorship states that an author must have contributed substantially to a work's: conception or design; data acquisition, analysis or interpretation; intellectual content development or critical review; final version approval; and integrity, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy or completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.
Ethics of authorship in scientific publications
Authorship should be based on the contribution provided by each author who has made a significant scientific contribution to a study. Credit of authorship has important academic, social and financial implications and is bound by guidelines, which aid in preserving transparency during writing and publication of research material so as to prevent violation of ethics.
Are Your Solar Eclipse Glasses Fake? Here's How to Check
Look around: it should be too dark to see distant hills, trees or even the ground. If that second test is passed, keep the glasses on and quickly glance at the sun. You should comfortably see a ...
2023 Outstanding Papers published in the Environmental Science journals
Outstanding Papers of 2023 from RSC's Environmental Science journals Outstanding Papers 2023 - Environmental Science: Advances Jump to main content . Jump to site search . Publishing. Journals; Books; Databases; Search. ... Search articles by author. Zongwei Cai. Neil Donahue. Graham Gagnon. Kevin C. Jones. Célia Manaia. Elsie Sunderland.
Using scientific authorship criteria as a tool for equitable inclusion
Using scientific authorship criteria as a tool for equitable inclusion in global health research. Nadia Adjoa Sam-Agudu 1, 2, 3 and Seye Abimbola 4, 5 ... These approaches stem from the notion that authorship contributions are not limited to 'putting pen to paper'; that writing itself is an interpretive process, that much of the framing of ...
2023 Outstanding Papers published in the Environmental Science journals
The Editors-in-Chief of the Environmental Science journals introduce the Outstanding Papers of 2023. Outstanding Papers 2023 - Environmental Science: Nano Jump to main content . Jump to site search . Publishing. Journals; Books; Databases; Search. ... If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, ...