Authorship

Starting from (mid) 2022, our lab will implement the following recommendations of McNutt et al. (2018, p.2557)1:

In doing so, we also adhere to the The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA-code; section 2.7.)

Standards for authorship

  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.

  2. AND to have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study)

  3. AND to have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to 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, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

(Based on McNutt et al. (2018, p.2558)2)

What constitutes as a ‘substantial contribution’ is not a black-or-white issue, so at the beginning of each study, we will discuss which contributions warrant first authorship, co-authorship, or acknowledgments. When in doubt, we will generally take a more ‘inclusive approach’, especially towards early-career researchers (but always with a clear description of the contributions).

When required or appropriate, authorship agreements for specific studies can be updated throughout the study (after consultation with the PI and involved team members).

Responsibilities for corresponding authors

As a general rule, the first author is also the corresponding author. Roles for the corresponding author are as follows:

  1. ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission

  2. ensure that all authors receive the submission and all substantive correspondence with editors, as well as the full reviews

  3. verify that all data, materials, and code, even those developed or provided by other authors, comply with the transparency and reproducibility standards of the lab. This responsibility includes but is not limited to:

  1. ensuring that original data/materials/code upon which the submission is based are preserved following best practices so that they are retrievable for reanalysis;

  2. foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data/materials/code described in the work.

The CA should be responsible for managing these requirements across the author group and ensuring that the entire author group is fully aware of and in compliance with best practices outlined in this lab guide.

(Based on McNutt et al. (2018, p.2558)3)

CRediT taxonomy

We recognize that lab members can make various contributions to a study or project. Starting from (mid) 2022, we therefore use the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) for all our papers. CRediT includes 14 roles, that can be used to represent the diverse roles played by contributors to research outputs.

By using this taxonomy, we can4:

  • Move beyond the coded language of authorship order to more fairly and accurately describe each authors’ role in conceptualizing, conducting, and reporting research
  • Ensure that everyone included on the author list truly played a role in conducting the research
  • Reduce authorship disputes and facilitate collaboration
  • Give hiring, tenure, and funding committees more insight into the scope and caliber of (current and former) lab member’s work

Affiliation

  • The listed affiliation should include any institutions where one was affiliated while completing the work.

  • Any work completed at Ghent University should include the Ghent University affiliation, even if the individual has left Ghent

  • Work completed prior to joining Ghent University but published after joining the lab does not need to include the UGent affiliation, but it may be included (along with the institution where the work was completed) if work was done on the paper (e.g., writing or making substabntial revisions) after joining the lab.

Footnotes

  1. McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557–2560.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115↩︎

  2. McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557–2560.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115↩︎

  3. McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557–2560.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115↩︎

  4. Adapted from https://plos.org/open-science/credit/↩︎