Authorship and Publication Guidelines

Purpose

The Authorship and Publication Guidelines support the interpretation and application of the Research Integrity Policy Good Research Practice responsibilities (GRPs) in the authorship of research manuscripts and publication of research findings.

Background

Authorship is a way of assigning the rights and responsibilities for intellectual work and contribution to research outputs and giving credit for academic work. Publishing research findings is important to the reputation of individuals and to the reputation of the University.

Te Tumu Herenga|Libraries and Learning Services resources: Guidance and training opportunities related to the academic publishing process, including journal selection, peer review, open access and copyright is available on the Te Tumu Herenga|Libraries and Learning Services ResearchHub pages.

These guidelines are applicable to researchers across the University who are publishing their research, including doctoral and other postgraduate students, early career researchers, and academics at the middle and later stages of their careers.

Contents

  • Authorship criteria
  • Application of authorship criteria
  • Acknowledgement of contributions
  • Authorship frameworks and agreements
  • Citing University affiliation and ORCiD identifiers
  • Original research
  • Trust markers
  • Use of artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation
  • Unethical authorship assignation
  • Procedure for authorship dispute resolution
  • Guidelines for peer reviewers and editors
  • Correcting research records
  • Key relevant documents

Authorship guidelines

Authorship criteria

1. An author is an individual who

a. has made a substantial contribution to the research and its output, and

b. has reviewed and approved the submitted manuscript. 

Application of authorship criteria 

2. Substantial contribution:

Examples of substantial contributions required for authorship include one and preferably more than one of the following:

a. The concept or design of the work, including theoretical contributions; AND/OR
b. The acquisition, processing and/or transformation of research data where the acquisition has required significant intellectual judgment, planning, design, technical skill or input; AND/OR
c. Contribution of knowledge, where justified, including Indigenous Knowledge; AND/OR
d. The analysis and interpretation of research data; AND/OR
e. Has drafted the manuscript, critically reviewed or substantively revised it.

3. Authors are accountable for following discipline-specific guidelines.

4. Authorship is not determined by a specific role or position but must be justifiable against the Authorship criteria. Technical staff, junior researchers, and students who have made a substantial contribution and meet the above criteria are entitled to authorship regardless of their job title or level of supervision required.

5. When otherwise not meeting the Authorship criteria, authorship should not be attributed to or accepted solely on the basis of:

  • the provision of funding, data, materials, infrastructure or access to equipment
  • the provision of routine technical support, technical advice or technical assistance
  • the position or profession of an individual, such as their role as the author’s supervisor or head of department when they are not meeting the authorship criteria (‘gift authorship’)
  • whether the contribution was paid for or voluntary
  • the status of an individual who has not made a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution being such that it would elevate the esteem of the research (‘guest authorship’.

6. Contributors other than researchers must also be included if they meet the authorship criteria, for example, research participants or people who are not academic researchers or members of the University, but who are helping with a study. Those accepting the authorship must be able to undertake the responsibilities associated with authorship as well as any ethical obligations around dissemination of research results. In these circumstances, it is important to have an Authorship Agreement that outlines contributions and responsibilities.

7. When the research or data is subject to ethics conditions and new authors or participants are taking on an authorship role or data will be shared with persons outside those named in the ethics approval, the University’s Research Ethics Team must be contacted. An amendment to the approved ethics application may be required and the conditions under which the research data could be shared clarified. It is important to obtain this advice because retrospective approval for sharing data outside the original scope of ethics approval cannot be given.

8. The Doctoral Thesis Policy and Procedures have additional requirements around authorship and publications for doctoral theses.

9. If an author is deceased, a note can be added to the publication. 

Acknowledgements of contributions

10. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship but have contributed to an aspect of the research should be noted in an acknowledgements section, and their function or contribution should be described, for example “collected data”, “provided writing assistance”, “served as scientific advisors”. 

Authorship frameworks or agreements

11. Research teams are encouraged to discuss and document an authorship framework at the start of a study with all authors and contributors. Such a framework should include:

  • the names of expected authors based on the contributions envisaged for each team member
  •  the order of the authors’ listing, which will reflect both contribution and disciplinary norms
  •  the responsibilities for drafting and finalising the eventual manuscript(s)
  • the list of contributors to be noted in the acknowledgments section

12. The framework should be actively maintained throughout the study to document any changes in the team or contributions, for example, if someone leaves the team or become incapacitated, someone new joins the team, etc.

13. Prior agreement is especially important in the case of collaborative research with staff from other institutions as there is often very little recourse if a dispute over authorship of a research output arises without an authorship agreement. In these cases particularly, authorship arrangements should not rely on verbal agreements.

14. For multi-author projects with a corresponding author, the corresponding author typically:

  • take responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process
  • are responsible for the integrity of the manuscript content
  • should be available throughout the publication process and after publication to respond to requests for information or data requests
  • should take the lead to request any correctins that may come to light after publication. 


Use of University affiliation and ORCiD identifiers

15. University authors must acknowledge Waipapa Taumata Rau|University of Auckland in all their research outputs as the institution to which they are affiliated.

  • An institute, centre, academic unit or faculty may also be listed following Waipapa Taumata Rau | University of Auckland.
  • Those with conjoint, honorary or adjunct appointments should acknowledge the University where appropriate, for example in the following scenarios:
    • an Honorary Academic but not employed elsewhere at time of publication
    • employed by University at the time of publishing their research - the institution(s) where the research was conducted as well as the University should be added
    • when the research was conducted at or with (or funded by) the University, or relied on University resources in any way, even if they were employed elsewhere.

    16. University researchers are expected to obtain and include their ORCiD ID number with each of their outputs, and also include it in the metadata of the publications and all presentations.

    Learn more about creating and maintaining your ORCiD record from Te Tumu Herenga |Libaries and Learning Services.

    Original Research

    17. Only original work should be submitted for publication. At the time of submission, the corresponding author(s) must disclose to the publisher any substantially similar work which has previously been submitted for publication or is being submitted to another publisher at the same time. 

    Trust markers

    18. Authors are encouraged to include the following statements as trust markers in the relevant section of their publications (as applicable to their study):

    • Acknowledgement of grant or funding received, including the award number (unless prevented for reasons of confidentiality)
    • Ethics approval statement
      • Including the ethics committee name(s) and reference number(s).
      • A statement about adhering to ethical principles, for example, principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, can be included, however, such a statement should be in addition to providing the University ethics committee approval information.
    • Conflict of interest/competing interest statement (financial or non-financial)
    • Use of artificial intelligence in the research or preparation of manuscript
    • Description / details of author contributions:
      • In some disciplines, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) may be useful to document the contributions of each research team member.
    • A statement about data or code availability:
      • Informs readers how and where to obtain the data or code used in the publication
      • The ResearchHub has more information about the format of a data availability statement

    Use of artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation

    19. Researchers must follow the University’s policies, standards and guidelines about the use of artificial intelligence (AI), including generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), in writing and creating images for research publications.

    20. Publishers have policies and requirements about the use of AI and GenAI in preparation of a manuscript and images for publications. Find out whether the proposed publisher allows use of GenAI tools in the writing of the publication. Generally, use of AI or GenAI tools in the research or writing of the paper should be disclosed to the publisher.

    21. Where AI was used to produce a manuscript in part to improve spelling or grammar, or to generate images, this must always be disclosed to the publisher, regardless of whether the publisher requires the disclosure. 

    Unethical authorship attribution

    22. Certain authorship attribution practices are considered to be unethical under the Research Integrity Policy (include link) and must be avoided. Specifically:

    • Including authors without their permission
    • Including guest authors - that is, including others who have not contributed substantially to the research:
      • Gift authorship: addition of an author who has made no substantial intellectual contribution to the research and/or manuscript
      • Honorary authorship: naming someone as an author because they hold a senior position, or their only contribution was securing funding, or in the hope that their influence or standing will increase the likelihood of publication and/or impact of the paper
      • Accepting authorship by invitation when little or no contribution was made to the research study.
    • Excluding authors – so-called ghost authors, i.e., not including or appropriately acknowledging a contributor to the research, data analysis or writing. This could include:
      • excluding a research student, technical staff, trainee or associate who meet the eligibility criteria as an author
      • excluding a person in an attempt to hide a conflict of interest from editors, reviewers and the public
      • not disclosing contributors from commercial entities, e.g., pharmaceutical or device companies.
    • Guest writers should not be included as authors unless they meet the authorship criteria, but should be included in the acknowledgements. 

    Procedure for authorship dispute resolution

    23. In the event of a dispute regarding authorship, staff should seek advice from the Research Integrity Adviser in their faculty/LSRI in the first instance, or if they are unavailable, from the Research Integrity Officer at researchintegrity@auckland.ac.nz

    Guidelines for peer reviewers and editors

    24. Peer reviewers:

    • should familiarise themselves with the guidance and policies of the publishers or journal for peer reviewers
    • should be aware of the publisher’s policies on using GenAI tools to assist in peer review of manuscripts, including whether submission of someone else’s paper to a GenAI tool is permitted
    • should declare a perceived or real Conflict of Interest (CoI) and recuse themselves from a review where a potential CoI exists
    • should be aware that publishers may have a policy requiring the publication of reviewers’ identities and the peer review comments.

    25. Editors:

    • Researchers should familiarise themselves with the guidance and policies of the publishers or journal when acting in an editorial role
    • Must adhere to the Conflict of Interest (CoI)/Competing interest policies and guidance of the publisher or journal
    • Must especially be conscious of the publisher’s policy about avoiding any CoI that results from making editorial decisions while a co-author on a paper written by a colleague or research collaborator within the time period specified by the publisher
    • For more information about resolving such a COI, COPE has published a case report to clarify expectations for instances where an editor is also a co-author. 

    Correcting research records

    26. When an error is discovered in a submitted manuscript, pre-print or published paper, the specific recommended action depends on the nature of the change(s) required, which can vary from correcting, withdrawing prepublication or retracting the work post-publication. These should be seen as positive actions to support the integrity of the research literature.

    27. Prior to publication:

    If an error is discovered in the submitted manuscript prior to publication, it is best to contact the editor and provide the corrections required. Depending on the nature of the corrections, the changes could be incorporated if they are minor, or the manuscript may have to be withdrawn, re-written and then re-submitted.

    Pre-prints can be edited by adding the required changes to a new version that will be published under the same DOI, or changes can also be made to the metadata only. Changes could include an updated title, subject, license, abstract, DOI, and/or author list.

    28. Published papers:

    The correction process is usually started by contacting the editor of the journal about the appropriate correction method, and in cases where there are multiple authors, all authors should be involved in the correction decision and content as much as possible. Because publisher and journal processes can vary, it is best to consult the web pages of a publisher/journal and follow their prescribed process.

    Correction or retraction notices become permanent records with a unique DOI number once published.

    • Correction:

    If the correction required is minor, for example, correcting spelling or grammar, the change could be made to the online version. More substantial corrections may require the publisher to issue a correction notice, which informs readers of manuscript change using the journal’s template and stating the new DOI number for the correction notice.

    • Retraction:

    Retraction of a published paper is usually requested when a major error in the methods or data is discovered post-publication. In these cases, the error may invalidate the conclusions in the paper. Retractions could also be the process used to correct alleged or proven research or publication misconduct. Publishers and journals have information on their websites about the criteria for retraction of a published paper.

    • Expression of concern:

    Expressions of concern are issued when a journal or publisher have received evidence of alleged research misconduct, but are not able to conclusively prove the misconduct, or they are issued when it becomes clear that an investigation into the alleged misconduct would take a considerable amount of time, usually due to a separate institutional investigation.

    • Withdrawal:

    Once published, withdrawal of a publication is done rarely and then mainly for safety, legal, or security reasons, or if the content violates the rights to privacy of a study participant. It should be noted that withdrawal of a publication will affect the permanent research record.

    Key relevant documents

    Document management and control

    Owned by: Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation
    Content manager: Director, Te Puna Tiketike|Research and Innovation Office
    Approved by: Vice-Chancellor
    Date approved: August 2014
    Reviewed date: February 2025
    Next Review date: February 2030