Fair and equitable determination of authorship is important to the reputation, academic promotion and funding support of the individuals involved, and to the strength and reputation of the authors’ respective institutions.

Many institutions and peer-review journals have established standards for authorship that have consistent key principles. Experience with best practices demonstrates that being transparent and communicating these key principles at the beginning of projects helps to promote constructive, conflict-free collaborations. In practice, various inducements have fostered authorship practices that fall short of these standards. Whereas ghost writing and gift authorship reflect one extreme, more commonly substandard practices are employed to improve the credibility of intellectual work, increase competitiveness for publication or funding, or to avoid interpersonal conflict.

Early and Open Communication

As early as possible in the research or scholarly process, collaborators should discuss the general requirements for authorship of any manuscript that will report results of joint work. This does not mean deciding who will – or will not – be an author. Rather, the principles guiding authorship decisions should be discussed, potentially with reference to this or similar guidance documents. 

To prevent misunderstandings, it is recommended that discussions of authorship standards be held openly and frequently within collaborative projects. Agreements should be established between coauthors early in the writing process for each manuscript, and these agreements should be reviewed and revised as needed to reflect changes in the actual contributions of each individual.

Disagreements sometimes arise regarding who should be named as an author of or contributor to intellectual work and the order in which individuals should be listed. Some of these disputes are a result of failed communication and expectation setting. These guidelines are meant to serve as a set of standards that are shared by the academic community as a whole, to help facilitate open communication through adherence to common principles. These principles apply to all intellectual products, whether published or prepared for internal use or for broad dissemination.

These guidelines apply to all faculty, students, postdoctoral researchers and staff.

Legal ownership of research data and materials produced in the course of Brown University research activities resides with the University and not with the individual investigator.

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research is the responsibility of the principal investigator(s). This guidance outlines the ethical responsibilities of the investigator(s) and the University resources available to support implementation of the principles outlined herein.

Brown University acknowledges and appreciates that there are many different standards across fields regarding authorship (e.g., the order in which authors are listed). As a result, each laboratory, department and/or school should have conversations and clear guidelines around discipline-specific standards of authorship and, if needed, should supplement these Guidelines with a description of their discipline-specific standards of authorship. If such standards are documented in writing, they should be made available to all collaborators and discussed at the beginning of the collaboration.

Brown University recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria, defined by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). An author should:

• provide substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work;
• draft the work or revise it critically for important intellectual content;
• give final approval of the version to be published; and
• agree 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.

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 in disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned. The ICMJE provides additional comprehensive instruction on authorship on its website.

ICMJE: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

All authors share responsibility for the integrity of the publication and must be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific parts of the work. An individual retains the right to refuse co-authorship of a publication if s/he does not satisfy the criteria for authorship.

All co-authors of a publication are responsible for:

• Acknowledgement of meeting authorship criteria as defined above.
• Acknowledgement of reviewing and approving the publication.
• Providing the content of all appropriate portions of the publication, including the integrity of any applicable research.

This guidance also provides further information about specific responsibilities of first, middle and senior/last authors.

First Author Responsibilities

The first author(s) typically contribute(s) most substantially to the research and writing of the manuscript. Responsibilities can include:

• Leading the design, execution, data collection, and analysis.
• Drafting the initial manuscript and coordinating revisions.
• Managing input and feedback from co-authors and ensuring consensus on content.
• Handling manuscript submission and responses to peer review.
• Ensuring that data are accurately presented and that methods and findings are transparently reported.
• Working collaboratively with co-authors and institutional officials on any post-publication inquiries or concerns and completing corrections if necessary. 

Corresponding Author

The corresponding author usually takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. Additionally, the corresponding author:

• Provides a draft of the publication to each individual contributing author for review and consent for authorship. The corresponding senior should obtain and document from all coauthors their agreement to be designated as such and the approval of coauthors on the final draft of the publication. A journal may have specific requirements governing author review and consent, which must be followed.
• Ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements are completed, including authorship contributions, ethics committee approval, and conflict of interest disclosures;
• Is available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries;
• Is available after publication to respond to questions regarding the work, and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. 

Senior (Last) Author Responsibilities

The senior or last author often serves as the principal investigator or project leader and is ultimately accountable for the integrity of the work. Responsibilities include:

• Providing conceptual guidance, funding, resources, and overall project supervision.
• Supporting the development of junior researchers and promoting responsible authorship practices.
• Taking reasonable care and effort to determine that all the data are complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted.
• Ensuring that all publication related data are managed and retained in accordance with Brown’s Research Data and Research Materials Management, Sharing, and Retention Policy and other applicable policies, including data retention requirements set by the journal(s).
• Ensuring that the research adheres to institutional, disciplinary, and ethical standards, which includes ensuring the integrity of the work as a whole.
• Including as co-authors all and only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria as defined above.
• Reviewing the full manuscript for scientific accuracy, clarity, and compliance with submission requirements.
• Providing timely responses to post-publication inquiries, which includes, but is not limited to, questions about data interpretation, methodological details, availability of underlying datasets, potential errors, or concerns about reproducibility. Note that this is often a shared responsibility with the corresponding author.
• Cooperating with institutional officials, journal editors and/or publishers if formal follow-up is required (e.g., corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions. Note that this is often a shared responsibility with the corresponding author.

If a publication has shared lead or senior authors, all authors sharing in a role are equally responsible for their respective responsibilities. 

Middle Author(s)

In multi-authored publications, the middle author(s) often contribute(s) to one or more aspects of the project but typically do not take lead or supervisory roles. Responsibilities include:

• Participating in the research through data generation, analysis, methodology, or interpretation.
• Reviewing and commenting on drafts, particularly in relation to their specific area of contribution.
• Reviewing and approving the final manuscript for submission.
• Accepting responsibility for their specific contributions and for understanding the overall work sufficiently to identify potential issues.
• Working collaboratively with co-authors and institutional officials on any post-publication inquiries or concerns and completing corrections if necessary. 

Authorship Contribution Section of Publication

Authorship contribution sections are often required by journals, especially for multi-authored research articles. While not always mandatory, they provide clarity and transparency about individual contributions to the research and are used by institutional officials to determine roles and responsibilities if there are any integrity-related questions or concerns.

Non-Author Contributions/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.

Gift and Ghost Authorship

Gift authorship should not be conferred on those who have not made intellectual contributions to the work or whose intellectual contributions are limited. For example, provision of routine technical services or a valuable reagent, referral of patients or participants for a study, assistance with data collection and management or review of a completed manuscript for 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 contributions to the research or writing of a manuscript that merited authorship. It includes employing authors for hire with the understanding that they will not be credited. Ghost authorship is not a practice that meets the principles outlined in this guidance.

Guidelines for Authorship When Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted Technology

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in research and scholarly writing introduces new considerations for authorship, transparency, and accountability. While AI tools can assist with data analysis, image generation, text drafting, and other research tasks, they do not meet the criteria for authorship and cannot assume responsibility for the content of a scholarly work.

This section outlines key principles and expectations regarding the ethical and appropriate use of AI in the research and publication process.

AI Tools Do Not Qualify for Authorship

AI tools, including large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) and image generation software, lack consciousness, accountability, and the capacity to consent or take responsibility for published work and therefore, AI tools must not be listed as authors. Only individuals who meet established authorship criteria such as making substantial intellectual contributions, participating in manuscript preparation, and approving the final version should be credited as authors, which follows ICMJE guidelines.

Disclosure of AI Use

The use of AI tools in the research or writing process must be disclosed transparently. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Text generation or editing: Use of AI to draft, revise, or polish written content.
• Data analysis: Use of machine learning models or AI-powered software for data interpretation.
• Image or figure creation: Use of generative AI to produce visual content.
• Coding assistance: Use of AI to develop or debug scripts, models, or software tools.

Authors must describe the nature and extent of AI use in the methods, acknowledgments, or a dedicated disclosure statement, following the requirements of the relevant journal, funder, and Brown University.

Author Responsibilities

When AI is used, human authors remain fully responsible for:

• The accuracy and integrity of all content produced with AI assistance.
• Verification of outputs, including ensuring that generated text, data, and images are original, non-misleading, and properly sourced.
• Avoiding inappropriate use, such as generating fabricated references, misrepresenting results, or failing to attribute content properly.

Successful determination of authorship requires commitment to collegiality and open, frank, consistent communication and expectation-setting throughout the research and scholarly process.

Discuss Authorship Regularly

Research groups should discuss authorship credit/criteria, presentation of joint work and future directions of the research as early as practical and frequently during the course of their work. This should involve explicit discussion of expectations of continued collaboration if a contributor who would normally be considered an author leaves the project or institution during the conduct of the work. The lead investigator should initiate these discussions; however, any collaborator may raise questions or seek clarity throughout the course of the collaboration. Each lab or group may consider having a written guiding document in place.

Follow Good Lab Practices

Collaborators are expected to adhere to good laboratory practices, including maintaining a complete laboratory notebook and annotating electronic files, as these practices will aid in identifying and clarifying individuals’ contributions to a project. 

Manage Data Carefully

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.

Share Customary Practices

Laboratories, departments and educational programs supporting scholarly work at Brown should include guidelines in any procedure manuals and a description of their own customary ways of deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors are listed. These customary practices should be included in orientation of new members.

Incorporate Authorship into RCR Training

Discussion of the principles of authorship should be integrated into any responsible conduct of research (RCR) course that is taught at Brown.

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. Brown University recommends adherence to the following procedures when a dispute arises, unless disagreements are a result of alleged fabrication or falsification of data or plagiarism and, therefore, instead subject to Brown policy.

Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

Open, Collegial Discourse

Resolution of disputes among collaborators 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. 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 weighed and considered and objectively applied. It is expected that most disputes will be resolved collegially among collaborators.

Third-Party Assistance

If the disagreement cannot be resolved among collaborators, input should be sought from a neutral third party, such as the University Ombudsperson or other trusted parties.