Fair Attribution Guidance
Conceptualisation
Example: A Research Development Manager (RDM) assists a project team to come up with new ideas for a funding call. The team decides to pursue an idea suggested by the RDM and subsequently publishes an article on the research.
Attribution: The RDM should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors/applicants would like to acknowledge the help of [name] at the University of York in the conceptualisation of this project”. Consideration of whether the individual should be included in the list of authors and in discussions around drafting the output would be appropriate, depending on the level of their contribution.
Data curation
Example: An archivist collates materials on a specified topic for a research project.
Attribution: The archivist should be acknowledged by name: “The Author(s) would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York, in collating/curating archive materials.”
Example: A curator provides creative and contextual input while identifying research material from collections.
Attribution: The curator should be acknowledged by name: “The Author(s) would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York, in collating/curating archive materials.” The authors should consider whether the contribution to the output warrants inclusion in the list of author(s).
Formal analysis
Example: A technician, or team of technicians, provides data interpretation and analysis of an experiment or series of experiments.
Attribution: The technician(s) assisting with the experiment should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York in the interpretation/analysis of experiments.”
Funding acquisition
Example: A researcher within the team who has not contributed to the background research or creation of the specific output was instrumental in acquiring the funding to enable the research.
Attribution: The researcher should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York in acquiring the funding which enabled this work.”
Note: Funders and sponsors who directly supported the research which led to the output should be acknowledged on outputs as outlined in the conditions of grant awards.
Investigation
Example: A technician, or team of technicians, obtains data for a single experiment and performs routine characterisation sending data to the user to analyse.
Attribution: The technician(s) assisting with the experiment should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or characterisation facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York.”
Methodology
Example: A technician, or team of technicians, supports the experimental design of the research.
Attribution: As the research has required intellectual contribution from one or more technicians, these individuals should be included in the author list of the resultant output and included in discussions during drafting and submission.
Project administration
Example: A Project Manager/Professional Research Investment and Strategy Manager (PRISM) makes a significant contribution to the delivery of research through their organisation and coordination of research activities and collaborators.
Attribution: The PRISM should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] at the University of York for their management of this research programme.”
Resources
Example: A Public Patient Involvement Adviser (e.g. from the Involvement@York team) provides support with identifying, approaching and supporting members of the public (including patients, carers, service users and families) to be involved in a research project.
Attribution: The individuals should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the involvement and contribution of [name] within the [team or department], at the University of York, in coordinating the patient involvement for this research.”
Example: A technician or team of technicians provides materials and training on the equipment used to conduct the research.
Attribution: The service or facility should be acknowledged, as per the general principles.
Software
Example: A Research Software Engineer develops software which is fundamental to the creation of the research on which an output is based.
Attribution: The individual(s) should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or characterisation facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York, in the creation of software to enable this research.”
Note: The authors should consider whether the software development should be considered an intellectual contribution to the research, and therefore whether the developer should be considered a co-author.
Supervision
Example: A project lead/PI provides leadership and oversight of the research activity.
Attribution: The project lead/PI should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the support and direction of the project lead [name], at the University of York.”
Example: An external mentor provides the author(s) with guidance on the research activity’s planning or execution.
Attribution: The mentor should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the support and direction of [name], at [institution].”
Validation
Example: A technician provides verification of the replication or reproducibility of results or experiments.
Attribution: The individual(s) should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the help of [name] and the use of [service or characterisation facilities] within the [name of team/facility and department], at the University of York, in the validation and verification of results.”
Visualisation
Example: A Research Assistant supports the preparation and presentation of a poster through data visualisation or presentation.
Attribution: The Research Assistant should be acknowledged by name on the poster.
Writing - original draft
Example: A postgraduate student writes sections of the research output.
Attribution: The student should be included in the author list of the resultant output and included in discussions during drafting and submission.
Writing - reviewing and editing
Example: A postdoctoral researcher critically reviews an output for fellow members of their research team and suggests edits to the text and commentary on the overall output.
Attribution: The researcher should be acknowledged by name: “The Authors would like to acknowledge the input of [name], at the University of York in reviewing and editing.”
Note: If the new directions and contributed text amount to an intellectual contribution to the output, the authors should consider naming the researcher as a co-author.
Whilst this guidance aims to encourage a fair and equitable environment to enable appropriate reflection and action on attribution processes and decision making, it must be acknowledged that the individuals that this guidance is designed to support are typically in a less privileged or powerful position within the research community. There will also be variability between individuals’ ability to comfortably raise issues around attribution, potentially leading to inequitable outcomes.
Reaching collective agreement on attribution during the establishment of new research projects or teams can help to mitigate this. Project ethos documents, group discussions on values and processes, or the creation of ‘lab handbooks’ are useful ways to raise fair attribution at an early stage.
If issues arise around fair attribution during a research project they should be addressed as soon as possible.
If a work is published and an individual feels their contribution to the work has not been recognised appropriately, the individual should raise this with their line manager (if they have one) or with the project PI in the first instance. Where a team has agreed at the outset of a project a procedure to address and resolve such disputes (for example, through open discussion in a team meeting) this process should be followed. Where neither course of action is deemed acceptable (for example, if the dispute is with the individual’s line manager or PI) or cannot be resolved with the line manager/PI or within the immediate research team, the process for authorship disputes should be followed (see section 4.2.5 of the Research Integrity Code of Practice for further details).
We would like to acknowledge the support and resources for fair attribution at other universities including Durham, Nottingham and Leeds, which we have used as a basis for developing this guidance.
Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash
Document owner: Research Culture Working Group
Approved by University Research Committee: 26 September 2024
Review cycle: 1 year, thereafter 3 years
Date of next review: 2025, 2028
