Discuss authorship through contributions, opportunity and responsibility

1. Bring the journal’s criteria to the conversation

For journals applying ICMJE, authorship requires all four elements: substantial contribution to the study or its data; intellectual drafting or critical revision; approval of the final version; and accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity. Read the full criteria before applying them.

Record the journal, policy address and date checked. If the destination changes, compare the new requirements before transferring the manuscript. Agree on what evidence the group will retain for each decision, such as an analysis note, a documented interpretation discussion or a substantive manuscript revision. A job title, friendship or anticipated favour is an unreliable substitute for an account of the work.

Reference: ICMJE: authors and contributors

2. Describe work before assigning a label

CRediT supplies a shared vocabulary for contributions; it does not determine authorship. Its implementation guidance encourages contributors to review and confirm assigned roles. Use it alongside the applicable criteria, with descriptions that explain what happened in this project.

A useful record has one row per person and separates planned tasks from completed work. “Analysis planned” should not silently become “analysis completed” when the deadline arrives. Add an evidence location and an unresolved question where needed. Keep the working record accessible to the people concerned while protecting study data; it need not contain participant-level information or private employment details.

Reference: NISO CRediT: contributor roles and implementation

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Work through three fictional borderline cases

Consider a fictional clinic study being prepared for a journal using the criteria above. Rana designed and interpreted a sensitivity analysis but has not yet received the draft. Omar arranged meeting rooms and maintained the appointment calendar. Lina wrote a major discussion section but has not answered the final-version request. These descriptions are intentionally incomplete; the next step is to ask about the actual work, not infer a person’s whole contribution from one sentence.

Rana needs the opportunity to review the manuscript. Omar should be asked whether he made additional substantive contributions that the administrative description misses. Lina’s silence is not final approval. The group should record the missing facts and arrange a workable response date. None of these three entries should be converted automatically into a final byline decision.

4. Make participation possible

ICMJE cautions against excluding qualifying contributors by denying them the chance to draft, review or approve the manuscript.

Send the relevant version with clear questions, adequate time and an accessible way to respond. A colleague on clinical duty may need a scheduled discussion rather than a last-minute email. Language support can help someone examine the scientific argument; do not confuse difficulty with English prose with absence of intellectual contribution. Record the arrangement and what was actually completed, rather than promising authorship for attendance alone.

Reference: ICMJE: authors and contributors

5. Separate eligibility, order and correspondence

ICMJE leaves author order to the group and directs unresolved eligibility disputes to the institution rather than the journal editor.

Create separate agenda items for eligibility, sequence and responsibility for journal correspondence. Explain the proposed order in terms the group can discuss. If equal contribution is proposed, check the journal’s presentation rules and describe the real contribution. Assign someone to monitor messages during leave. These practical arrangements should not become hidden bargaining chips in a disagreement about scientific credit.

When disagreement persists, preserve the versions and differing accounts privately. Seek the applicable institutional process and record who is handling the issue. Avoid circulating accusations to unrelated colleagues or submitting a contested list as though agreement exists.

Reference: ICMJE: authors and contributors

6. Confirm the actual submission package

Give contributors a clearly identified final file and identify material changes since their last review. Match the manuscript byline, contribution statement and submission-system entries. Check spelling, affiliation and contact details with the person concerned. A correct name in a spreadsheet does not show that the portal contains the same information.

Retain the agreed record and reopen it if the work changes materially during revision. If an authorship change is requested after submission, use the journal’s current process and preserve the explanation; do not quietly alter a later file. The aim is an accurate account of contribution and responsibility that the group can explain, including any decision that remains unresolved.

Questions for a practical final check

• The target journal and criteria are recorded.
• Planned work is separate from completed contributions.
• Contributors can review their role descriptions.
• Outstanding review or approval is visible.
• Eligibility and order have separate decisions.
• The byline and portal match the confirmed version.