Guidance on Academic Authorship

Authorship is important in academia because it affects researchers’ careers and opportunities. Loughborough University is committed to fostering a healthy and inclusive research and innovation culture, where everyone can thrive, innovate and produce their best work. This guidance aims to ensure that authorship practices at Loughborough contribute positively to our culture by recognising and rewarding all contributors fairly, upholding accountability for research integrity, and supporting collaboration within and across disciplines.

Authorship should be discussed as early as possible at the outset of a research project and revisited as the work progresses, particularly if new contributors become involved. Misunderstandings often arise from unclear expectations, so research teams should clearly document who will contribute and in what capacity, including who will serve as corresponding author, before drafting begins. Any authorship decisions should have the agreement of all co-authors. Regularly reviewing and recording these decisions in writing—such as in an email—helps ensure transparency, accountability and fairness.

Responsible authorship practises should be inclusive and ensure that all contributors who meet the criteria are recognised, regardless of job title. The University recommends defining authorship based on the following criteria, adapted from McNutt et al. (PNAS, 2018), whereby 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 the drafting or critical revising of the work for important intellectual content;
• AND approved the submitted version (and any significantly revised version involving their contribution);
• AND agreed to be personally accountable for their own contributions and to ensure that concerns about the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even those beyond their direct involvement, are properly investigated, resolved and documented.

We recognise that different disciplines may have varying approaches to authorship, but these criteria should be the basis for deciding who is included as an author. Anyone who meets the criteria should be listed as an author, and all named authors must have made a genuine contribution.

The criteria should not be used to unfairly exclude someone from receiving recognition as an author. For example, it would be inappropriate to prevent someone from taking part in the drafting or revision process and then deny them authorship because they did not contribute to the writing.

All those who contribute to a work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should, with their permission, be named in the acknowledgements, with their contributions described. Since acknowledgment may imply endorsement of the study’s findings, any one who does not give their consent should not be included. All funders and sponsors of research should be clearly acknowledged. Additionally, data sourced from third parties, facilitation to access data and the use of equipment or samples must also be appropriately cited or acknowledged.

The University strongly encourages the use of a CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement in research publications wherever possible, though notes that some roles may not apply equally across all disciplines. CRediT may also help when drafting contributions for acknowledgements. MerIT (Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency) can further enhance accountability by attributing contributions within the main text and is also encouraged where appropriate. 

In cases where two or more people have made major contributions to a research output, this should be recognised, for example, by noting them as having equal contributions or using designations such as joint first author or joint corresponding author, or a combination of these, as appropriate.

While contribution statements like CRediT help ensure transparency, it’s important to note that not all contributions listed necessarily qualify someone for authorship; all authors should still meet the full Criteria for Authorship set out above.

Forms of authorship that do not align with the intention of the criteria of authorship given above—including ‘ghost authorship’ and ‘guest authorship’ (see below)—are unacceptable and may be considered research misconduct.

Ghost authorship happens when someone who has made a significant contribution to a research project or publication, and meets accepted authorship criteria, is left off the author list or not given the chance to contribute. This is an unacceptable practice and goes against the principles of fairness and integrity in research. Everyone who qualifies for authorship should be included, ensuring that credit and responsibility are properly shared.

Guest authorship happens when someone who has not made a meaningful contribution to a research project or publication, and does not meet accepted authorship criteria, is added as an author. For example, this might happen if a senior researcher is included to make a research output seem more influential, or if colleagues agree to list each other as authors on all their research outputs to increase publication numbers.

This is an unacceptable practice. Authorship should always reflect real contributions, not job titles or professional relationships. Being a head of research or offering minor PhD supervision does not automatically mean someone should be listed as an author if they have not contributed to the research in a meaningful way. To maintain integrity and fairness, only those who meet the criteria for authorship should be included as authors, and other contributions should be recognised via the acknowledgements.

Individuals should also be aware that accepting authorship without appropriate due diligence or a clear  understanding of the context of a project can carry risks. For example, it could increase the likelihood of being exploited by hostile actors or breaching regulations such as export control, particularly when engaging with individuals or organisations of concern in controlled or sensitive research areas. Further details are available in the Safer Partnerships and Trusted Research (see below).

Authorship conventions vary by discipline. In some, authors are listed alphabetically, while in others, positions reflect contribution and recognition. To support fairer decisions on author order, the American Psychological Association has developed a scoring system to quantify contributions, with a tiebreaker for equal scores. Alternatively, multiple authors may be noted as having contributed equally. However, since metaresearch has revealed gender inequalities in how equal contributions are listed, an objective method—such as alphabetical or random ordering—may be appropriate in these cases. The order of authors should always be agreed upon by all co-authors, and, where possible, the publication should include a brief explanation of the chosen order.

For journal articles, at least one author is typically designated as the corresponding author. This may or may not be the first or lead author, depending on conventions of the field and each author's contributions.

Before publication, the corresponding author manages communication with the journal throughout submission, peer review, and publication. They are also responsible for ensuring that administrative requirements—such as authorship details, ethics approvals, clinical trial registrations, and conflict of interest statements—are properly completed.

After publication, the corresponding author is the point of contact for queries about the output. It is their responsibility to inform all co-authors of any matters arising in relation to the output and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly.

Research teams should discuss authorship early and agree on the corresponding author in advance. In some case, it may make sense to select someone whose contact details are unlikely to change soon. At the same time, effort should be taken to support the progression and development of early-career researchers by providing opportunities for them to take on senior authorship roles where appropriate. Joint corresponding authorship may be appropriate in such cases, while ORCID (see below) can help ensure authors remain linked to their work, even if their affiliations or contact details change.

All researchers must acknowledge Loughborough University in their research publications, starting from the manuscript submission stage. The correct format should be:

• [Department/School], Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom
  or
• [Institute/School], Loughborough University London, London, E20 3BS, United Kingdom

Where publishers limit space for listing affiliations, 'Loughborough University' or 'Loughborough University London' must take precedence over Department, School, or Research Group names.

If a publisher does not provide a section for including an affiliation, this information should be added as a footnote on the first page.

For non-textual outputs, researchers should determine the most appropriate place to include their university affiliation.

Unless a journal specifies otherwise, the primary affiliation should be the institution where the research was carried out. If an author has since moved, their new institution may be included—typically as a footnote, in the acknowledgements, or as an additional affiliation—along with any updated contact details.

Where multiple affiliations are appropriate, they should accurately reflect the institutions where the research was conducted, supported, or approved. Once a publication has been accepted, listed affiliations should not be changed.

It is the responsibility of each author to ensure their Loughborough University affiliation is correctly listed. Authors should also verify the proofs of any publications received.

It should be noted that many of the current open access agreements are based on the corresponding author’s affiliation to a subscribing institution. However, this should not influence the affiliation listed on a publication—the primary affiliation should always reflect where the research was conducted.

All involved with research at Loughborough who have a LUPIN (Loughborough University Publications Information System) profile should ensure it is linked to their ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) and those who do not yet have an ORCID should register for one. This is to ensure that their work is accurately attributed to them and distinguished from that of others with the same name. Guidance on registering and linking your ORCID is available via Research Support.

While contributors may be eager to be listed as authors, they should also consider the responsibility that comes with authorship. Authors are accountable for the integrity of the research, including any allegations of misconduct. It is essential that they not only understand their own contributions but are also aware of the roles of co-authors and acknowledged individuals.

A conflict of interest arises when professional judgment regarding a primary interest, such as patient welfare or research validity, could be affected by a secondary interest, such as financial gain. The perception of a conflict of interest is just as significant as the conflict itself.

Articles should include statements or supporting documents that disclose:

• Authors’ conflicts of interest
• Sources of support for the research

The University’s Safer Partnerships and Trusted Research guidance recognises both the value of international collaboration to achieving our individual and collective goals and the risks posed to national and economic security in research and innovation activities by hostile actors.

The Safer Partnerships and Trusted Research resources emphasise the importance of collaborating safely and responsibly to:

• Maintain the safety of our staff, students and partners, whether working in the UK or abroad and protect their freedom of speech and academic freedom
• Protect the integrity of our research and innovation activities and avoid exploitation by state actors whose values do not align with ours
• Protect the security of the valuable intellectual property generated by the University and within the UK’s innovation community, which provides us with a global economic advantage
• Keep the University compliant with laws and regulations

When considering international co-authorship, colleagues are encouraged to read the ‘what to consider’ and ‘what is my role’ pages which highlight key considerations such as undertaking appropriate due diligence on individuals and organisations, considering potential conflicts of interest and regulatory requirements, such as export control, and taking appropriate responsibility.

If you have a question about Safer Partnerships and Trusted Research, please contact the Trusted Research mailbox.

Where research outputs involve co-authors from other institutions, researchers are encouraged to use this guidance to support early and open discussions about authorship and contributions. While the principles set out here are consistent with wider sector expectations, institutional policies may differ, so it is important to clarify and mutually document any agreements when they are made.

Challenges can also occur in interdisciplinary projects when it is unclear which conventions to follow. In these cases, researchers should largely adhere to the guidelines set by the target journal or publisher. It is advisable to establish an agreement regarding the publication strategy during the initial planning stages of these projects.

While authorship reflects contributions to a publication’s intellectual content, it is not synonymous with inventorship or ownership of intellectual property (IP). Inventorship requires a creative contribution to the conception of an invention, and not all inventors qualify as authors — nor vice versa. Researchers are encouraged to familiarise themselves with the University’s guidance and support for IP protection.

Research outputs take many forms. While this guidance is most applicable to written publications—such as journal articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, exhibition catalogues and preprints—equivalent standards should be applied, where appropriate, to non-text or practice-based outputs, including artefacts, artworks, performances, exhibitions, digital creations, films and animations.

AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as authors or co-authors on outputs, as they cannot meet the requirement for accountability. Any use of AI in research, including in the drafting or revising of the output must be declared and clearly explained, just as with other tools or methodologies. Authors remain responsible for ensuring their work is original, properly cited, and does not breach plagiarism policies. Please refer to Loughborough’s guidance and specific publisher guidelines for further details.

Authorship disagreements can sometimes arise. Researchers should first attempt to resolve disputes collaboratively, using the guidance above to inform discussions. If a resolution cannot be reached, advice can be sought from the Schools’ Research Integrity Champions and/or the University’s Research Governance team, who oversee Ethics and Research Integrity.

This guidance was first published in 2025, and informed by sector best practices, including the University of Liverpool Guidance on Authorship (2024), the Glasgow School of Art Code of Good Practice in Research (2024), the University of Nottingham Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics (2023), the University of Glasgow Code of Good Practice in Research (2023), the University of Dundee Policy to govern the publication of research (2025), and the COPE Discussion Document on Authorship (2019). It will be reviewed regularly and updated as needed; questions about this guidance can be sent to researchpolicy@lboro.ac.uk.