Authorship Guidelines

These guidelines help determine authorship for scholarly projects — including manuscripts — and provide a process for resolving authorship disputes.

They apply to all individuals involved in scholarly activities at the University. Because expectations differ across disciplines, the guidelines set a common standard while leaving room for field-specific norms.  

The Guidelines 

Authorship Requirements

Authorship confers credit for contributions to scholarly work and carries both responsibility and accountability. Although practices differ between disciplines, authorship should be restricted to those who have met each of the following four criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or substantial scholarly effort such as the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
2. Participation in drafting, reviewing, and/or revising the work;
3. Approval of the final version of the work for publication; and
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Anyone who meets all four criteria should be included as an author. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take full responsibility for their contributions to its content.

Practices that are not acceptable

• Ghost authorship. Failing to include as an author an individual who meets the criteria above.
• Gift (honorary) authorship. Including an individual who does not meet the criteria — including the outdated practice of listing department chairs or other senior individuals who made no substantial intellectual contribution.
• Purchased authorship. Including an individual solely on the basis of financial sponsorship, funding, or other non-intellectual contributions.

Acknowledgments and the lead author

Individuals who provide a valuable contribution but do not meet the authorship criteria should be recognized in the acknowledgments, as appropriate to the venue — not listed as authors.

A manuscript generally has a lead author responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole, for establishing the author list and order, and for obtaining each co-author’s agreement to be designated as an author and approval of the final manuscript prior to submission.

Avoiding Authorship Disputes

Many disputes can be prevented through proactive communication. Project teams should:

• Discuss expectations early and often. Raise authorship as early as practical in planning, and revisit it as team members join, leave, or change roles. The faculty member or PI leading the project should initiate these discussions, but any collaborator should feel free to ask questions or seek clarity at any point.
• Expect authorship to evolve. Contributions can change during a project — for example, if a journal requests additional data during peer review. Consult all authors whenever the initial arrangement needs to be modified.
• Put it in writing. Develop a written authorship agreement at the outset, ask all potential authors to affirm it, and revisit it whenever significant changes occur.

Resolving Authorship Disputes

Disputes are best settled directly by the authors themselves. They often arise from differing perceptions of contributions and the resulting attribution of credit, and can occur at any stage of the scholarly process. When concerns arise, the project team should discuss the matter openly and collegially; mutual agreement is strongly encouraged.

If the team cannot reach agreement through direct discussion, it is often helpful to involve a neutral facilitator, such as a department chair or senior faculty member, so that all viewpoints are fairly considered. This informal mediation step should be attempted before the formal dispute process begins.

If the lead author is affiliated with another institution, the dispute should follow that institution’s established procedures.

The Authorship Dispute Committee

The Authorship Dispute Committee is appointed by the Senior Vice Chancellor for Research. It is multidisciplinary, drawing on expertise from across the University’s major areas of scholarship, and includes trainee membership.

The Dispute Process

A disputant initiates the formal process by submitting a request to the Committee Chair. The review then proceeds in stages:

• Initial consultation. The Chair meets with the disputant to gather background and to confirm that reasonable attempts were made to resolve the concern informally.
• Information gathering. The committee may request written statements or interviews with the disputant and relevant co-authors — particularly the lead author — and, where applicable, the faculty member overseeing the project if that person is not an author.
• Deliberation and determination. After deliberation, the committee issues a written determination to the disputant, all co-authors, and the Dean(s) of their respective school(s).
• Nature of the determination. The decision is nonbinding unless all authors agree in advance that it will be binding. It offers an impartial external opinion to help the authors and Deans reach an amicable resolution. If the dispute remains unresolved, the written determination may be treated as presumptive evidence of the appropriate authorship designation.

Resources

Submit a request for committee consideration. Open the intake form to refer an authorship dispute to the committee: 

Authorship dispute intake form →

Report research misconduct. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism follow a separate process — not this one: 

Research integrity at Pitt →

Other Resources.

View ORP Resources →

Institute for Clinical Research Education Authorship Agreement →