Are you in or are you out?

This month I want to blog about the most important aspect of an academic journal paper: the people involved. This includes authorship—who deserves the credit—and acknowledgements—who deserves the thanks.

At the risk of alienating myself, annoying you, or otherwise souring our invisible relationship, I have decided to write this blog with the assistance of Claude.ai.  My reason is that I feel strongly about who deserves credit (and who does not) and creating visibility for those people and organizations that make our research possible—yet, I don’t have a broad knowledge base to share. Rather than pontificating, I’d rather provide tangible strategies and guidelines—with links to references and resources you can click to learn more—don’t worry, these aren’t anything I’m paid for…just sharing information.

Ok, so Claude.ai states:

Deciding who deserves authorship on an academic paper is one of the most delicate and consequential decisions in scholarly publishing. Getting it wrong can damage collaborations, careers, and research integrity. This guide will help you navigate the often murky waters of authorship criteria, author order, and acknowledgments.

Yikes! No pressure!

Well…let’s dig in!

Here is what I’ll cover:

• Authorship criteria
• Author order conventions
• Essential tasks for authorship
• Acknowledgments section
• Best practices

 

 

Authorship

Who deserves Credit?

The ICMJE Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established widely adopted criteria stating that authorship should be based on all four of the following conditions:

1. Substantial contributions to conception or design of the work, or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring questions related to accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved

ICMJE states explicitly that all four criteria must be met to be listed as a co-author. Contributors who meet fewer than all four should be acknowledged but not listed as authors.

Discipline-Specific Variations

While the ICMJE criteria originated in medical sciences, they've been adapted across disciplines. However, different fields have different norms:

STEM Fields: Often use the ICMJE criteria or similar substantial contribution requirements. In laboratory sciences, authorship typically requires involvement in experimental design, data collection/analysis, or manuscript writing.

Humanities: May have more flexible criteria, often including anyone who made significant intellectual contributions to the argument or analysis, even without data collection.

Social Sciences: Generally fall between STEM and humanities, requiring substantial intellectual contribution but with varied interpretations of what constitutes "substantial."

What Doesn't Warrant Authorship

Simply providing resources, supervision, or administrative support typically doesn't qualify for authorship. Specifically, the following alone are insufficient:

• Providing funding or laboratory space
• General supervision of the research group
• Technical assistance or data collection without intellectual contribution
• Providing materials or patient samples
• Reading and commenting on drafts (without substantial revision contributions)

These contributions belong in the acknowledgments section instead.

 

 

What about your graduate advisor?

Here is some guidance to help graduate students navigate what can be a tricky and sometimes uncomfortable conversation with their advisors. The aim is to balance protecting students from inappropriate gift authorship while also recognizing legitimate contributions that advisors make beyond basic supervision.

When Should Your Advisor Be a Co-Author?

The advisor-student relationship creates a unique dynamic where mentorship and supervision blur with intellectual contribution. Here are guidelines to navigate this decision:

When Your Advisor Should Be a Co-Author:

1. Substantial intellectual contribution: If your advisor helped develop the core research question, designed the methodology, or shaped the theoretical framework beyond basic mentoring, they likely deserve authorship. There's a difference between saying "have you considered X?" (mentoring) and "let's approach this using X framework, here's how..." (intellectual contribution).
2. Active involvement in analysis or interpretation: If your advisor worked with you to interpret results, helped you through analytical challenges with specific guidance, or contributed to understanding what the findings mean, this warrants authorship.
3. Significant manuscript contribution: If your advisor substantially drafted or rewrote sections (not just light editing), provided critical revisions that changed the argument or framing, or helped you restructure the paper's logic, they should be included.
4. Field norms expect it: In many STEM fields, the PI/advisor is routinely the last author on student papers because they provide the research infrastructure, funding, and strategic direction. Even if their day-to-day involvement was limited, disciplinary norms may expect their inclusion.

When Your Advisor Might Not Need to Be a Co-Author:

1. Purely supervisory role: If your advisor simply monitored your progress, provided general encouragement, and approved your plans without specific intellectual input, this is supervision rather than co-authorship. This is more common in humanities and some social sciences where independent scholarship is emphasized.
2. Independent project: If you developed the project independently (perhaps for a side project or using external funding), conducted all research and analysis yourself, and wrote the manuscript with only light feedback, sole authorship may be appropriate.
3. The work diverges from their expertise: If you pursued a project outside your advisor's area of expertise where they couldn't provide substantive intellectual guidance, their supervisory role alone may not warrant authorship.

Best Practices for Students:

• Have the conversation early: Discuss authorship expectations at the project's outset. Ask directly: "Given your role in this project, should you be a co-author, or would acknowledgment be more appropriate?"
• Understand field norms: What's standard in your discipline? In biomedical sciences, the advisor is almost always the senior author. In mathematics or philosophy, sole authorship is more common even for dissertation work.
• Document contributions: Keep track of your advisor's specific contributions beyond general mentoring. This helps both of you assess whether authorship criteria are met.
• Err on the side of inclusion when borderline: In ambiguous cases, especially for your first publications, including your advisor (typically as last/senior author) can be diplomatically wise and reflects the mentorship that enabled the work.
• Consider dissertation vs. new projects differently: Publications directly from your dissertation often include your advisor given their role in shaping that work. New projects you initiate as you gain independence might not.
• Remember: sole authorship isn't always better: Especially early in your career, having a respected senior author can lend credibility to your work and improve the likelihood of publication and citation.

A Practical Question to Ask:

"If I'm presenting this research at a conference and someone asks a challenging question about the methodology or interpretation, would I need to say 'I should ask my advisor about that,' or can I defend all aspects independently?" If you need your advisor to answer substantive questions about the work, they're likely intellectually invested enough to be a co-author.

 

 

Determining Author Order

Author order matters in academic publishing, as it signals the level of contribution and can significantly impact career advancement. However, conventions vary across disciplines. Social science fields show particularly diverse practices, ranging from strict contribution-based ordering to alphabetical conventions.

First Author in Social Sciences

The first author position typically goes to the person who made the greatest overall contribution to the work. In social science fields, this is usually the person who:

• Led the project conceptualization and research design
• Performed the majority of the data collection or analysis
• Wrote the initial draft of the manuscript
• Coordinated contributions from co-authors and synthesized the intellectual vision

Examples:

- Sociology: A graduate student conducts ethnographic fieldwork over 18 months, performs the qualitative analysis, and writes the manuscript. They are first author, while their advisor who helped refine the theoretical framework and provided methodological guidance is second author.

- Education Research: An assistant professor designs a mixed-methods study of classroom interventions, oversees data collection, conducts the analysis, and drafts the paper. They are first author, with the school district research partner who facilitated access and contributed to interpretation as second author.

- Psychology: A postdoctoral researcher develops the experimental design, runs participants, analyzes data, and writes the first draft. They are first author, while the lab director is last author following STEM conventions common in psychology.

Last Author in Social Sciences

Unlike STEM fields where last author is consistently the senior/PI position, social sciences show more variation:

Psychology and Quantitative Social Sciences: Often follow STEM conventions where last author is the senior researcher, PI, or lab director who provided overall direction and resources.

Qualitative and Field-Based Research: Last author position doesn't carry special significance. Authors are typically listed in descending order of contribution, so last author simply contributed least.

Economics: Last author position is neutral when alphabetical ordering is used (see below).

Example - Political Science: In a three-author paper on voting behavior, the order might be: Lead Researcher (first) → Data Analyst (second) → Research Assistant who helped with literature review (last). The last position here indicates smaller contribution, not seniority.

Middle Authors and Ordering Conventions

Social sciences employ several different ordering systems, and understanding field-specific norms is crucial:

Descending Contribution (Most Common)

This approach lists authors in order of decreasing contribution and is standard in psychology, sociology, education, political science, and anthropology.

Example - Social Work: A four-author paper might order as: Primary Investigator (first) → Co-investigator who led data collection (second) → Analyst who conducted statistical tests (third) → Graduate assistant who helped with coding (last).

Alphabetical Ordering

Common in economics and increasingly in other social sciences when contributions are truly equal or when collaborators want to avoid status implications.

Example - Economics: Three economists collaborate equally on a theoretical paper. They list authors alphabetically: Chen, Rodriguez, Zhang. Readers understand no ranking is implied.

Example - Interdisciplinary Social Science: Two sociologists contribute equally to all phases. They use alphabetical ordering and include a footnote: "Authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to this work."

Hybrid Approaches

Some papers use contribution-based ordering for primary authors, then alphabetical for smaller contributors.

Example - Public Health: A large survey project lists the two lead researchers by contribution, then remaining team members alphabetically: Smith (PI) → Johnson (Co-lead) → Anderson, Chen, Williams (team members, alphabetical).

Senior Author Placement Across Social Sciences

Where the senior researcher/advisor appears varies significantly:

Psychology: Typically the last author (following STEM conventions)

• Example: Student → Postdoc → PI

Sociology/Anthropology: Typically the first or second author if they made major contributions; may not appear if contribution was purely supervisory

• Example: Student (first) → Advisor (second) when advisor contributed substantially
• Example: Student (sole author) when advisor provided only supervision

Economics: Position determined by alphabetical order or appears first if they were the primary contributor

• Example: Senior researcher → Junior researcher (if senior led), or alphabetical regardless of seniority

Political Science: Variable—may be first if they led the project, or ordered by contribution

• Example: Senior researcher (first) → Graduate students (by contribution)

Education: Often second or third position, after the lead researcher but before minor contributors

• Example: Postdoc (first) → Faculty advisor (second) → Research assistants (last)

Co-First Authors in Social Sciences

When two researchers contribute equally, co-first authorship is increasingly common and should be explicitly noted.

Examples

- Psychology: Two graduate students in the same lab each design half of a multi-study paper and equally contribute to writing. They are listed as co-first authors with a footnote: "These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship."

- Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A sociologist and an economist equally contribute their disciplinary perspectives to a joint project. Co-first authorship acknowledges their distinct but equivalent contributions.

- Community-Based Research: An academic researcher and a community organization leader co-design and co-execute a participatory action research project. Co-first authorship reflects their equal partnership.

Detailed Social Science Disciplinary Practices

Psychology (Experimental/Quantitative)

• Follows STEM model: Primary Researcher (first) → Contributors (by contribution) → PI/Lab Director (last)
• Last author position is prestigious and reserved for senior researcher

Sociology

• Descending contribution order: Lead Researcher (first) → Other Contributors (by contribution)
• Senior scholars appear where their contribution warrants, not automatically last
• Solo authorship remains more common than in psychology

Economics

• Alphabetical ordering is discipline standard for theory and quantitative work
• Applied/policy work may use contribution-based ordering
• Author order implies nothing about contribution when alphabetical

Political Science

• Generally descending contribution order
• Mixed conventions—some subfields (formal theory) use alphabetical, others use contribution-based
• Senior scholars typically first if they led the project

Anthropology

• Strong tradition of sole authorship for ethnographic work
• Collaborative projects use descending contribution order
• Senior researchers included only if they made substantial contributions beyond supervision

Education Research

• Descending contribution order is standard
• Practitioner-researchers increasingly included as co-authors when they contribute beyond site access
• Dissertation-based publications typically list student first, advisor second

Social Work/Public Health

• Descending contribution order
• Community partners sometimes included as authors when involvement meets authorship criteria
• Large team projects may use first author + "and colleagues" format with full list in footnote

Communication Studies

• Primarily descending contribution order
• Increasing use of co-first authorship for equal collaborations
• Graduate students commonly first author with faculty advisors in middle positions

 

Essential Tasks for Authorship

To earn authorship, contributors should typically be involved in multiple phases of the research process:

#1 Conception and Design Formulating research questions Designing methodology Developing theoretical frameworks Planning experiments or data collection strategies	#2 Execution and Analysis Collecting or generating data Conducting experiments Performing statistical or qualitative analysis Interpreting results in context
#3 Writing and Revision Drafting sections of the manuscript Providing critical intellectual revisions (not just copyediting) Responding to reviewer comments Ensuring accuracy and integrity of the work	#4 Approval and Accountability Reviewing and approving the final manuscript Taking responsibility for the work's integrity Being available to address questions about the research

A general rule of thumb: if someone was involved in at least two of the first three categories and both items in the fourth category, they likely deserve authorship.

 

 

Acknowledgements

Who deserves thanks?

The acknowledgments section is where you recognize contributions that were valuable but don't meet the threshold for authorship. This section is important for transparency, gratitude, and research integrity.

What to Include in Acknowledgments

Financial Support: Always acknowledge funding sources, including grant numbers. Example: "This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 12345."

Technical Assistance: Lab technicians, research assistants, or specialists who provided specific technical services. Example: "We thank Dr. Jane Smith for assistance with electron microscopy."

Intellectual Contributions: Colleagues who provided valuable feedback, suggestions, or discussions that shaped the work but didn't meet authorship criteria. Example: "We are grateful to Professor John Doe for insightful comments on early drafts."

Resource Provision: Institutions or individuals who provided materials, specimens, data access, or facilities. Example: "We thank the XYZ Biobank for providing patient samples."

Statistical or Editorial Support: Professional statisticians, editors, or writing consultants. Example: "Statistical analysis was supported by the University Statistics Consulting Center."

Permissions and Consent: When appropriate, acknowledgment of study participants or communities. Example: "We thank the study participants for their time and contributions to this research."

What Requires Disclosure

Many journals now require explicit statements about contributions that some might consider conflicts of interest:

• Professional writing assistance or editing services (especially if funded by a third party)
• Data analysis conducted by someone not listed as an author
• Individuals who work for entities with potential conflicts of interest

Format and Tone

Acknowledgments should be professional and gracious but concise. Group similar types of contributions together, and order them logically (typically funding first, then various types of assistance, then personal thanks).

Example Acknowledgments Section:

"This research was funded by the European Research Council under Grant Agreement No. 789012. We thank Dr. Maria Garcia for assistance with field data collection, the laboratory staff at ABC Institute for technical support with mass spectrometry, and Professor Robert Chen for valuable comments on the manuscript. We are grateful to study participants for their time and willingness to share their experiences."

 

Best Practices for Avoiding Authorship Disputes

1. Discuss early and often: Have explicit conversations about authorship expectations at the project's inception and revisit them as the work evolves.
2. Document contributions: Keep records of who did what throughout the project.
3. Follow field norms: Be aware of disciplinary conventions regarding authorship and author order.
4. Use institutional policies: Many universities have authorship policies—consult them when questions arise.
5. Be generous but principled: When in doubt, err on the side of inclusion for borderline cases, but don't include "gift" or "honorary" authors who didn't contribute meaningfully.
6. Get written agreement: Before submission, circulate the author list and order for explicit approval from all co-authors.
7. Consider CRediT: The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) provides standardized terminology for contributions, helping clarify who did what.

 

Conclusion

Authorship decisions reflect not just past contributions but also set expectations for future collaborations and career development. By following established criteria, understanding disciplinary norms, and communicating openly throughout the research process, you can ensure that authorship reflects genuine intellectual contributions while maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. When in doubt, transparency and documentation are your best allies in making fair authorship decisions that respect all contributors to your research.

  

Footnotes

Check out my free video this month. You can find it here.

I’ve also moved all my free short videos to my YouTube channel, check them out here. 

I upload new content monthly so subscribe if you are interested!

And while you are at it—join the Publish It! Community and share your experiences with other academic writers. It’s free!