Authorship conventions

A topic in research methodology

There are ethical considerations when determining academic authorship that set out clear general principles about whether someone should be considered as an author of an academic paper.

(Read about the concept of 'academic authorship')

The basic principles are obviously enough: those who make a substantive intellectual contribution should be authors, but not anyone else. Interpreting those principles may be less straight-forward.

Does material support count?

Authorship normally involves making a substantial intellectual contribution to a study.

However in some fields providing materials may be considered a basis for authorship. So in molecular biology, research may only be possible if a researcher is provided with particular biological materials that may take considerable time and skills to produce. These may be obtained from another researcher/laboratory, in exchange for authorship (Knorr Cetina, 1999). This is considered acceptable as the scientific work of the supplier is substantially necessary for the research reported. It is unlikely that authorship (rather than an acknowledgement) would be provided in an educational study simply because someone provided an existing research instrument or other materials.

In some fields, such as high energy physics, experiments may easily involve hundred of researchers, and author lists reflect this – and can go on for pages. (This is not an exaggeration – see Taber, Brock & Martínez Sainz, 2015, pp.14-23!)

Authorship order

There are different conventions adopted to order the authors of a multi-author study.

The hundred of authors of the higher energy physics paper cited in Taber et al 2015 are listed in alphabetical order, despite their seniority or relative inputs to the study.

Where senior researchers collaborate they may decide to use alphabetical order, and sometimes to then rotate the names if there are several publications produced in a collaboration.

There is also a convention in some fields and countries to list the academic leader of the study last, and the least senior colleagues (who often do more of the work, although may have less input into the major decisions) earlier in the list.

In education the most common convention is to order authors in terms of their relative contributions.

Types of writing

The principles of authorship ethics apply to research papers and similar reports of research – conference papers, chapters in books reporting studies, etc. ¹ However in less formal articles of book chapters which talk about research published in co-authored studies it may be considered that the writer of the article/chapter is THE author of the secondary output, as long as proper acknowledgement is given to colleagues, including citation of the primary (co-authored) research reports.

However, if in doubt, authors should discuss this with the relevant colleagues before writing and claiming sole authorship.

Sources cited:

• Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Taber, K. S., Brock, R., & Martínez Sainz, G. (2015). Thinking together, learning together, writing together: synergies and challenges in the collaborative supervisory relationship. Working Papers Series, (Faculty of Education University of Cambridge Working Paper 02/2015), 1-32.

Note:

¹ Or at least this is meant to be the case. (But read The mystery of the disappearing authors)