University’s Authorship Guidance and Dispute Resolution Process Guidance

University of Rochester

Authorship Guidance and Dispute Resolution Process

Purpose and Scope

The University of Rochester affirms its commitment to fairness, transparency, accountability, and integrity in the assignment of authorship and scholarly credit. Authorship should accurately reflect scholarly contributions and ensure that credit and responsibility are properly assigned.

This guidance applies to faculty, staff, trainees, students, visiting scholars, and others engaged in research, scholarship, or creative work at or under the auspices of the University. It applies to manuscripts, abstracts, conference presentations, posters, proceedings, preprints, and other scholarly products, recognizing that specific publication norms vary across disciplines and journals.

The Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship, & Ethics (ORISE) provides education, consultation, and support for responsible authorship practices and the resolution of authorship concerns in collaboration with other University offices and departments, including but not limited to the Department of Health Humanities and Bioethics (SMD), Office of Graduate Education and Post-Doctoral Affairs (GEPA), the Office of Undergraduate Research, University Libraries, , Research Security, and the Office of Counsel as appropriate.

Authorship Criteria

Each individual listed as an author should meet all of the following criteria:

• Has made substantial contributions to the project such as shaping the conception or design of the work, creating new software or tools used in the work, or acquiring, or analyzing data, or interpreting findings;
• Has reviewed and approved the version submitted for publication or presentation, as well as any substantially revised version that incorporates the individual’s contributions;
• Has accepted responsibility for their own work and agreed to assist, as needed, in addressing questions about the accuracy or integrity of any aspect of the project, including areas beyond their direct involvement to the greatest extent possible; and
• Has had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the drafting, review, and final approval process when their contributions otherwise support authorship.

All persons who meet these criteria should be included as authors. Individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged when appropriate and with permission if required by the journal or applicable disciplinary norm.

Responsibilities of Authors

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research, scholarly, and creative work is a shared responsibility of all project team members and is primarily the responsibility of the Principal Investigator (PI), faculty mentor, or project lead. Research teams are expected to engage in open, early, and ongoing communication about authorship, author order, corresponding author responsibilities, acknowledgments, publication venues, conference presentations, and expected timelines.

Written authorship agreements or discussion tools are strongly encouraged, particularly for projects involving multi-site collaborations, large teams, community partners, or students, postdoctoral fellows, or other collaborators who may change institutions before publication. Authorship roles may evolve during the course of a project, and authorship discussions should be revisited as contributions, project scope, and publication plans change.

Faculty mentors and project leads should model transparency and ensure that trainees, students, staff, and other contributors are included fairly and appropriately in authorship and scholarly credit discussions.

Acknowledgment vs. Authorship

Individuals who contribute to a project but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately. Examples may include individuals who provide technical assistance, administrative support, general supervision, funding acquisition, routine data collection, language editing, formatting assistance, or other support that does not include a significant intellectual contribution sufficient for authorship.

Acknowledgments recognize valuable support, but they do not imply authorship responsibility for the integrity of the published work. Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement, authors should follow journal requirements and disciplinary norms regarding permission from acknowledged individuals.

Contributor Roles and Documentation

Research teams are encouraged to document each contributor’s anticipated and actual role. When appropriate, teams may use a contribution taxonomy, such as CRediT, or a discipline-specific equivalent. Documentation may include contributions to conception, design, methodology, software, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, visualization, supervision, funding acquisition, project administration, writing, review, and editing.

Contribution documentation can help prevent disputes, support accurate author order, clarify acknowledgments, help define “substantial contributions”, and assist with journal submission requirements.

Author Order

The criteria used to determine author order vary by discipline and should be discussed early, documented when possible, and revisited as contributions change. Author order should not be based solely on academic rank, employment status, seniority, funding acquisition, or supervisory position unless those factors are consistent with applicable disciplinary standards and actual scholarly contributions.

When author order changes, the reason for the change should be discussed with the affected authors and documented. Research teams should use the authorship criteria, project documentation, and relevant disciplinary norms to resolve questions about author order.

Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal or publisher during submission, peer review, publication, and, when applicable, after publication. The corresponding author typically ensures that administrative submission requirements are completed, including authorship information, contribution statements, conflict-of-interest disclosures, ethics approvals, clinical trial registration information, funding acknowledgments, data availability statements, public access requirements, publication agreements, and any publishing fee payments.

Selection of the corresponding author should be discussed before submission. For some publisher open-access agreements and institutional publication workflows, eligibility may depend on the corresponding author’s institutional affiliation. Research teams should consider journal requirements, publisher agreements, open-access implications, and disciplinary norms when identifying the corresponding author. When there is uncertainty, authors should consult the University Libraries, ORPA, ORISE, or the relevant school or department resource before submission.

Affiliations, Funding Acknowledgments, and Sponsor Requirements

Authors are responsible for ensuring that institutional affiliations, funding acknowledgments, sponsor identifiers, award numbers, disclaimers, authorship/contribution statements, disclosures, data availability statements, and public access information are accurate, complete, and consistent with applicable sponsor, journal, publisher, and University requirements.

University researchers should consult the University’s Guidance on Institutional Affiliations in Publications when listing institutional affiliations in publications or presentations. In general, an author’s primary institutional affiliation should reflect the institution where the majority of the work was performed. The University of Rochester should be listed as the primary affiliation when the majority of the work was completed at the University, even if the author has since moved to another institution. A current or new institution may be listed as a present address or contact address when appropriate.

Accurate affiliations, acknowledgments, contribution statements, and disclosures are important not only for scholarly credit, but also for other research and sponsor reporting and security considerations. Authors should not omit, add, or modify affiliations, acknowledgements, or disclosures to avoid scrutiny or to create an inaccurate impression about where the work was performed, what support contributed to the research, or what sponsor or institutional requirements may apply.

Authors may contact ORPA, Research Security, ORISE, or the University Libraries, as appropriate when a publication includes federal funding, foreign affiliations, international collaborations, restricted entities or activities, or when uncertainty arises about required acknowledgments, disclosures, public access obligations, or publication terms.

Artificial Intelligence and Technology-Assisted Contributions

Artificial intelligence tools, chatbots, large language models, image generators, and similar technologies cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility or accountability for the accuracy, integrity, originality, or final approval of scholarly work.

Authors who use AI-assisted technologies in preparing a manuscript, figure, image, analysis, abstract, poster, presentation, or other scholarly product must remain responsible for the content, verify the accuracy and originality of the work, ensure appropriate attribution and citation, and disclose the use of such technologies when required by the journal, publisher, sponsor, conference, or University policy. AI use that affects data collection, data analysis, image generation, or figure preparation should be described in the appropriate methods or disclosure section when applicable. AI use for writing assistance should be acknowledged as appropriate.

Conference Presentations, Posters, Abstracts, and Proceedings

Authorship and scholarly credit expectations apply to conference presentations, posters, abstracts, proceedings papers, and similar scholarly products. Teams should discuss how contributors will be credited on posters and presentations, who will present the work, whether a conference abstract or proceeding will later become a manuscript, and whether author order or contribution statements should be revisited before submission or presentation.

Students and trainees should receive clear guidance on how to list faculty mentors, collaborators, funding support, institutional affiliations, and acknowledgments on posters and presentations. When conference materials arise from sponsored research, required sponsor acknowledgments and disclaimers should be included when applicable.

Preprints, Public Access, and Publication Agreements

Before submitting a manuscript, preprint, conference paper, or other scholarly product, authors should consider whether the work is subject to sponsor public access requirements, data sharing requirements, repository deposit obligations, publication restrictions, intellectual property review, confidentiality obligations, export control or research security considerations, or publisher agreement terms.

For federally funded work, authors should consult the applicable sponsor requirements and institutional resources before signing publication agreements or selecting a publication route. ORISE is available to assist with questions before signing publication agreements to ensure authors preserve the rights needed to meet public access, repository deposit, and reporting obligations. For NIH-funded work, authors should be aware that the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy applies to Author Accepted Manuscripts accepted for publication on or after the effective date  of the policy implementation and requires submission to PubMed Central without an embargo at the time of publication. For NSF-funded work, peer-reviewed journal articles and papers in juried conference proceedings must comply with NSF public access requirements, and NSF-supported work must include required acknowledgments and disclaimers when applicable.

Changes to Authorship After Submission

Changes to authorship after submission, including adding or removing an author or changing author order, should be handled carefully and documented. The corresponding author or project lead should notify all authors, explain the reason for the proposed change, and obtain agreement from all authors when required by the journal or publisher. If a requested change raises a concern about the accuracy or integrity of the work, the matter should be referred to ORISE.

Non-Responsive Authors

All authors should have a reasonable opportunity to review and approve manuscripts and other scholarly products before submission. Research teams should set clear deadlines for author review and should document efforts to contact authors who do not respond. If an author is non-responsive, the corresponding author or project lead should make reasonable efforts to contact the individual using available contact information and should retain documentation of those efforts.

A non-responsive author should not be removed solely to avoid delay if the individual otherwise meets authorship criteria. If a non-responsive author prevents submission or raises uncertainty about approval, responsibility, or author order, the project lead should seek guidance from the department, school, ORISE, or the appropriate University office before submission.

Discipline-Specific Standards

The University recognizes that conventions for determining authorship, author order, contribution statements, acknowledgments, and publication practices vary across disciplines. Such variations are respected, provided they are consistent with the minimum expectations set forth in this guidance, applicable journal and sponsor requirements, and principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability. Research teams are encouraged to consult discipline-specific guidance in addition to this University guidance.

Resolution of Authorship Disputes

Authorship disagreements should first be addressed collegially among collaborators, guided by disciplinary norms, contribution documentation, and any existing agreements. If informal efforts do not resolve the matter, disputes should be raised at the school or departmental level with the appropriate Director, Chair, Research Dean, or other designated leader.

The Research Integrity Officer (RIO), in consultation with the University Ombudsperson or other University offices as appropriate, may provide neutral facilitation and guidance. This process is intended to support constructive dialogue and fair resolution.

If resolution cannot be reached, the Dean of the school in which the dispute arises, or in cases involving multiple schools, the Provost or the Provost’s designee, may convene an ad hoc committee to review the dispute. The committee will include impartial faculty peers, with representation from each school involved in the dispute, as well as a representative from an ethics or bioethics program when appropriate. Membership should be structured to account for clear power differentials among the parties; in such cases, representatives from relevant student or postdoctoral associations may also be included. The committee may additionally include a member from outside the University and may consult subject matter experts as needed to provide technical advice or disciplinary context. Subject matter experts will not participate in the final decision-making unless appointed as committee members.

The committee will review contributions, documentation, communications, disciplinary standards, and applicable sponsor, journal, or University requirements and provide a written recommendation to the Dean or appropriate institutional official, who will issue the final determination in writing. The final determination is intended to be binding on all authors, subject only to the limited appeals process described below. All authors are expected to comply with the final determination. Appeals will be considered only under the circumstances described in the Appeals Process section.

ORISE will administer the process to support a neutral, confidential, and fair review and to help ensure the committee is free from actual or potential unresolved conflicts of interest with the parties to the dispute.

If a dispute raises concerns about data accuracy, research records, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, improper image or figure preparation, undisclosed AI use affecting the integrity of the work, inappropriate sponsor acknowledgment, or potential research misconduct, it will be referred to ORISE for review in accordance with the University’s Policy on Research Misconduct or other applicable process.

Appeals Process

Authorship determinations are expected to be resolved collegially or through the dispute resolution process outlined above. In cases where a party believes that an authorship decision was made in error or unfairly, an appeal may be submitted as follows:

1. Who May Appeal

Any author or contributor who is directly affected by the authorship determination may file an appeal.

2. Grounds for Appeal

Appeals must be based on one or more of the following grounds:

• A procedural error based on this Authorship Guidance occurred in the handling of the dispute;
• New, relevant evidence has become available that was not reasonably accessible at the time of the decision;
• An unresolved conflict of interest or bias compromised the fairness of the process;
• The criteria for authorship were incorrectly applied; or
• The outcome, if applicable, was disproportionate or inconsistent with the evidence presented.

3. Timeframe

Appeals must be submitted in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the written decision from the Dean, authorship dispute committee, or other designated institutional official.

4. To Whom the Appeal is Submitted

Appeals should be submitted to ORISE at ORISE@rochester.edu.

5. Review of Appeals

The Provost or designee will review the record of the dispute, the grounds for appeal, and any new evidence. The review may be conducted on the written record, although additional input from the parties may be requested. A written decision will be provided to all parties, and the decision on appeal is final.