Introduction

The University of Bath is committed to a positive research culture where everyone is recognised for their contributions to research. This includes students, research staff, academics, research-enabling professional services staff, technicians, research technical professionals and external collaborators. Ensuring everyone is credited fairly in research outputs of all kinds improves collegiality, transparency, career development, and trust in research. Recognition is also an essential part of wellbeing as well as job and study satisfaction.

This document sets out principles to inform ethical, open, and responsible decisions on authorship and acknowledgements based on sector best practice. It reflects institutional expectations but cannot cover every eventuality and possible exception. In such circumstances it should be used to support a constructive process of discussion with the aim of reaching a consensus on authorship. However, definitions of appropriate contribution (point 2) and acknowledgement (point 5) are explicitly linked to the University of Bath's Code of Good Practice in Research Integrity and policies on misconduct.

Research group leads, Directors of Research and Heads of Department are responsible for ensuring all staff (particularly new staff) and research students are provided with authorship guidelines. Project leads should also communicate authorship guidelines at the outset of a project to all research and research-enabling/ technical staff involved.

1. When is authorship decided?

In line with recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics, authorship should be discussed as soon as possible. This may be when a project commences, when a project is being planned or designed, or when writing starts. These discussions should take account of any agreed consortia protocols, intellectual property, memorandums of understanding, or other existing agreements that could influence authorship arrangements.

Things may change as the research develops, and the relative contribution of different team members may increase or reduce, or new authors may need to be added to the team. Regular, open, and transparent discussion throughout the research process will minimise the chance of misunderstandings. It is recommended that the outcomes from these discussions are circulated to all.

2. Appropriate contribution: who is an author?

Drawing on guidelines developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), since adopted by the Committee for Publication Ethics and now in use by major publishers, the University of Bath expects all individuals who meet all four of the following criteria to be included as authors:

• 2.1 Substantial (i.e. a substantial amount of work) or significant (i.e. the work would not have been possible without their input) contributions to the conception/design of the work; or to the organisation of the study conduct; or the work's theoretical claims or argument; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the work's data.

All individuals who have made a substantial or significant contribution as above are offered the opportunity for authorship and explicitly invited to participate in points 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

• 2.2 Drafting parts of the work OR critiquing it for important intellectual content; AND
• 2.3 Final approval of the inclusion of their name against the version to be published; AND
• 2.4 Agreeing both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and ensure 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, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

These principles apply regardless of job family, seniority, or whether the individual works or studies within or outside the University.

We strongly recommend using the Contributor Role Taxonomy and to specify the role(s) of each author in a CRediT statement unless not possible or relevant. You may wish to use Tenzing, a free online spreadsheet that enables each person to record and track their contributions based on CRediT from the start of the project.

The CRediT taxonomy is part of an international standard published in 2022. It suggests 14 contribution categories to attribute to authors and to those in acknowledgements. Some paradigms, disciplines and fields of study will have different types of activities relevant to the contribution categories and not all contribution categories are relevant to all studies (see point 9). Table 1 lists the formal CRediT definitions for each contribution, in addition to suggestions for roughly equivalent contributions relevant to the Bath community.

Table 1 - Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT)

*Not formally part of CRediT’s definition but proposed by the University of Bath to ensure colleagues from a wider range of disciplines can identify relevant opportunities to engage in CRediT.

Lead authors (usually those who write the first draft of the paper, or those who designate the person to write the first draft) are accountable, but all authors are responsible, for ensuring:

• the principles of fairness and openness guide decision making throughout
• all prospective authors have reasonable opportunity to review the final version and how their contribution is represented before publication. The recommended process for this would be for everyone to be emailed the final draft with a clear and reasonable deadline - ideally four weeks - and a clear explanation of what will happen if they do not respond.
• there is evidence that every effort has been made to resolve concerns, disputes, or a lack of response if a prospective author does not confirm approval of the version to be published in the recommended timeframe (point 2.3); and
• they identify which co-authors contributed to which part of the work to support transparency, integrity and accountability (point 2.4).

3. In which order should authors be listed?

This depends heavily on the disciplinary norms of the field. Some journals provide explicit requirements and/or guidelines for authorship, which is a helpful indicator of norms, but you may also wish to discuss this with colleagues in your field.

When developing a research output (particularly for interdisciplinary work), it is strongly advised to have open conversations at the start of the writing process to ensure all authors feel comfortable that the order will represent the level of their contribution.

It is also recommended that prospective authors discuss the likely outlet for their research early in the process in case the journal imposes particular conventions that do not work for the whole team. This is particularly important for large or interdisciplinary teams where there may be differences in convention.

4. What are the corresponding author's responsibilities?

The corresponding author plays different roles in different disciplines. In some, it is the person (or people) leading the research who is willing to take questions about the research. In others, it is the person who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. This may include providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements. Speak to your peers about the norms in your field and review your publishers’ expectations of this role.

5. Appropriate contribution: who is included in acknowledgements?

Individuals or teams should be included in acknowledgements if they:

• have met some but not all the criteria for authorship set out in point 2; or
• have delivered a role(s) listed within the CRediT taxonomy (Table 1) but not all criteria for authorship in point 2; or
• provided essential support in facility operation or maintenance.

Depending on the discipline or journal, it may be appropriate to include additional acknowledgments. It is recommended that the acknowledgement makes clear the specific contribution and its importance where relevant.

The ICMJE recommends: “Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, editors are advised to require that the corresponding author obtains written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.” University of Bath staff and students are encouraged to adopt this practice where possible and appropriate.

Funders should also be acknowledged as per existing University guidance.

6. What if my publisher uses a contributorship model instead of an authorship model?

On rare occasions, publishing outlets may utilise a ‘contributorship’ model in place of an ‘authorship’ model. In these cases, all contributors must still (as per point 2.1) be invited to participate in points 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 above. However, given that the CRediT taxonomy makes the nature of the contribution explicit, they are not required to fulfil point 2.1. or 2.2. to be listed as a contributor.

7. What if my publication outlet doesn't accept CRediT?

Include all individuals and/or teams as authors or in acknowledgements as per the requirements above.

8. Do I acknowledge CRediT contributions in PURE?

No, we are not currently able to add CRediT taxonomies to PURE but are investigating how this might be achieved through discussions with Elsevier. We recommend you keep your own records of the CRediT roles played by each author or contributor, in order that you can direct queries relating to the output to appropriate team members. It is possible that these may be uploaded to PURE in the future if the capability and supporting capacity are established.

9. What if CRediT doesn’t capture the type of contribution people made?

There are recognised limitations to CRediT, in that it assumes particular types of ‘output’ from research, and thus excludes other important roles in the delivery of research (e.g. artist, producer). The University of Bath supports the use of CRediT as the current most transparent and internationally recognised means of recognising contribution and will continue to review this position. Work to incorporate a wider range of disciplinary perspectives into CRediT is ongoing and may lead to updated contributor types in the future.

10. How do I acknowledge technicians or research-enabling staff?

As with any other author, if they meet the first criterion (point 2.1), they should be invited to join the authorship team and to meet criterion points 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. If they confirm that they are not eligible to, or would prefer not to join the authorship team, then they should be included in acknowledgements as with any other staff/ student/ collaborator.

Technical staff who have not made a contribution that confers eligibility for authorship, nor fulfilled a CRediT contributor role, but without whom technical facilities used in the research would not be operable, should be acknowledged in the publication either as:

• a team e.g. “the authors gratefully acknowledge the technical staff within [Department or Facility] at the University of Bath for technical support & assistance in this work”
• a specific staff member e.g. “the authors thank Dr John Smith [replace with appropriate name] of [Department or Facility] at the University of Bath for his/her/their expert technical input/ assistance/ guidance in this work."

Similarly, professional services teams or groups of individuals such as patients or research participants may be acknowledged collectively. As per point 5 above, contributors should confirm their approval to be included in the acknowledgements.

11. What about supervisors?

Only individuals who meet all four criteria (points 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) should be included as authors on an output. This means that a supervisor of a postgraduate student does not have an automatic right to co-authorship. However, supervision of doctoral research would normally include contributions to that research that meet the conditions set out in the guidelines. Given the differences in experience and power between students and supervisors, as well as variations in disciplinary norms regarding attribution of authorship of publications from doctoral research, it is especially important that discussions about authorship are part of the supervisory process from the outset, and regularly reviewed as the doctoral research progresses.

12. What about when people leave?

Staff and students who have contributed as described in point 2.1, but who have since left the institution should still be approached as per points 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 as far as reasonably possible. It is recommended that email addresses be gathered prior to their departure where feasible.

13. How should AI be acknowledged?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as large language models (LLMs), should not be listed as authors or co-authors of a research output, because they cannot meet the criteria in Point 2, and cannot take responsibility for the content or integrity of the output.

If AI has been used at any point in the development of a research output (e.g. to collect, analyse, or interpret data) the nature of this usage should be cited in the methods section, and/or included in the acknowledgments.

Researchers are responsible for the originality, validity, reliability, and integrity of the findings of their research, including research developed using any AI or LLM. They should also refer to the AI policy of any publisher to which they plan to submit.

14. Is misrepresentation of involvement in research outputs research misconduct?

The University’s definition of research misconduct includes ‘misrepresentation of […] involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/ attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution.’ Appropriate contribution is defined in point 2 and point 5 of this document.

Unacceptable practices which constitute misrepresentation would include, for example:

• credit being allocated on the basis of seniority, departmental leadership, or principal investigator (PI) status alone; or
• changes to credit in the submitted output, which deviate from previous agreements between authors; or
• allocation of ‘gift’, ‘guest’, or ‘honorary’ authorship; or
• the use of power, bribery, threat or seniority to influence decisions on credit.

15. What is the process for resolving disputes?

Where an individual believes they have been unfairly denied the opportunity to be included as an author/ in acknowledgements, or that they or another person has been incorrectly included as an author/ in acknowledgements, the parties should first seek to raise the issue directly with the person/ people concerned.

Should direct discussion be untenable, you may wish to approach a colleague for advice, or to help mediate discussions. This could be a PI, supervisor, line manager, Director of Research, Director of Studies, or independent student advisor.

If the dispute involves one of these parties, or there are other extenuating circumstances which mean it is not possible to seek their support, you may wish to include the Head of Department, Associate Dean for Research, or Dean in these discussions.

If a dispute cannot be resolved this may warrant an enquiry into the authorship arrangements. Staff and students should refer the matter to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)by emailing pvc.research@bath.ac.uk in accordance with the procedure for inquiring into allegations of misconduct in research and scholarship.

If you need informal advice on authorship disputes, please get in contact by emailing research-ethics@bath.ac.uk. Students should contact their Independent Student Advisor in the first instance.

16. What about retaining copyright as an author?

Like many institutions around the world, the University of Bath has implemented a Self-Archiving and Copyright approach (known colloquially as “rights retention”).

It will enable University of Bath authors to retain the rights to re-use and re-distribute the accepted manuscripts of their journal articles and conference outputs as widely as possible while also meeting REF and funder open access requirements. This is helpful when:

• Gold Open Access publication cannot be funded
• you wish to guarantee your rights over your Author Accepted Manuscripts, allowing you to post them on various websites, platforms, etc
• you wish to comply with your funder's Open Access policy and your preferred route is self-archiving with an open licence.

Please review the University’s current guidance on self-archiving and copyright. It is important to work with your co-authors to agree an approach to rights retention, especially if you are working across multiple institutions who may have their own rights retention policies. If you need support, contact the Library’s Open Access Team at openaccess@bath.ac.uk.

17. Listing your University of Bath affiliation

To ensure your publications are recognised within the University of Bath, it is important that you take careful note of how to input your affiliation. It should follow the format:

Name, University of Bath, [Department / School / Institute / Centre], [Faculty]*, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

*Faculty may be omitted from the affiliation. Research groups/ Centres/ Institutes, Departments/ Schools, and the University MUST be separated by a comma.

The University name appears first to ensure it is always captured and not omitted due to character number limits. This helps ensure citations are properly attributed to the Institution. This is important because citations are a key metric that contribute to university rankings. If putting the Institution first is not acceptable within your journal’s style guidelines, you must make sure that the University of Bath is always included within the character limit for affiliation.

18. What to do if you or your co-authors have multiple affiliations?

If you or any of your co-authors have a post in more than one institution or have moved institution, use the affiliation or affiliations in which the research was completed or supported. Alongside the authors, this institution(s) is accountable for the research and must be transparently acknowledged. It would not be appropriate to include an affiliation where none of the contribution was made in that entity.

To review more nuanced guidance on this topic, review the University’s Recommendations.

19. Ensuring your research is identifiable

It is expected that all research staff register for an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) and use it to distinguish themselves from other researchers with similar names. It is also expected that wherever a journal allows ORCID that authors use it, regardless of their authorship position.

ORCIDs are unique, persistent identifiers for individual researchers which ensure your achievements and outputs are visible to the institution and your peers and receive due recognition. ORCIDs are used by institutions, funders and publishers to accurately identify researchers.