Authorship and Authorship Disputes

What is Authorship?

The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research(the Code) and the ANU Authorship Procedure define an author as a person (whether a student or member of staff) who has made a significant intellectual or scholarly contribution to research and its output through at least one of the following:

  • Conception and design of the project or output;
  • Acquisition of research data where the acquisition has required significant intellectual judgement, planning, design or input;
  • Contribution of knowledge, where justified, including Indigenous knowledge;
  • Analysis or interpretation of research data; and/or
  • Drafting significant parts of the research output or critically revising it so as to contribute to its interpretation.

An author is responsible not just for their contribution, but for the publication to which they put their name. They must agree to be listed as an author, accurately report their contribution to a research output, cite the work of others fully, and take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the contributions of all other co-authors. A person who qualifies as an author must not be included or excluded without their written agreement. Contributions to the research output that do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged, where appropriate.

It is strongly recommended that an authorship agreement is completed at the beginning of any collaboration that may result in a research output. The agreement includes nomination of the Corresponding or Senior Author, and is:

  • a transparent, honest, consistent and fair reflection of contribution to research, in line with established disciplinary practice;
  • communicated clearly between contributors to the research output; and
  • reviewed periodically as the research evolves.This written agreement should be provided by each author in a timely fashion. A record of each written agreement must be kept.

An example authorship agreement can be found here.

Each research output should have a corresponding author. This is the author who is the key contact for anyone who wishes to find out more information or has concerns about a research output. The corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that all contributors to a research output are appropriately recognised.

 

What is an Authorship Dispute?

The Code expresses authorship issues as follows (these are considered breaches of the Code);

  • Failure to acknowledge the contributions of others fairly
  • Misleading ascription of authorship including failing to offer authorship to those who qualify or awarding authorship to those who do not meet the requirements

Authorship disputes are not limited to disagreements about authorship of journal articles, they can also be about other research outputs e.g. datasets, software, protocols, reports, presentations and creative works. 

Confidential advice about authorship disputes may be sought from a Research Integrity Advisor from any College.

How are Authorship Disputes Managed?

Under the ANU Authorship Procedure, the dispute resolution process is managed locally, with Director/Dean input as appropriate. See below for matters in scope and out of scope of the authorship disputes process:

  • A party believes they should or should not be included as an author or given acknowledgement.
  • A party believes a third party should or should not be included as an author or given acknowledgement. 

  • A publication contains errors and should not be published.
  • A publication contains falsified information.
  • A publication contains plagiarised information.

Out of Scope matters should be referred to Research Integrity Office (staff/VaHa) or Registrar's Office (students).

Resolving Authorship Disputes: Guidance for local areas

The approach below includes advice and techniques for managing potentially difficult situations and discussions (known as trauma-informed practice). It is important to recognise that this may be a distressing situation for some/all the people involved. Key principle - shift your judgement to curiosity and ask yourself, I wonder what happened to this person?

StepsDetails
  1. College/School receives notice of authorship dispute
This could be from; staff/students, an ANU Research Integrity Advisor, the ANU Research Integrity Office, a journal, another university research integrity office.
  1. Agree on someone to run the process (adjudicator) 
In most cases this will be the School Director/Dean if no actual or perceived conflict of interest exists.  An alternative could be the Associate Director of Research. The person who runs the process should be aware of biases (e.g. unconsciously favouring authorship norms of their research field).
  1. Acknowledge the notice of dispute
Respond promptly to the person or organisation (known as the Complainant) and acknowledge the notice of dispute. Provide a timeline for further communication.
  1. Review the complaint – assess whether this is an authorship dispute

Authorship disputes would fall into these two categories of breaching the Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research:

  1. Failure to acknowledge the contributions of others fairly
  2. Misleading ascription of authorship including failing to offer authorship to those who qualify or awarding authorship to those who do not meet the requirements

Decide if the complaint can be characterised as an authorship dispute.  Alternatively, decide if it should be dismissed or managed under a different process (e.g. other research integrity matter or personal grievance/misconduct).

  1. Respond to the Complainant giving notice of your review of the matter.

Communicate the outcome of your assessment of whether the complaint is an authorship dispute with the Complainant and explain your reasons. 

If you will proceed with the complaint, confirm the allegations with the Complainant.

  1. Communicate clearly about the process with affected parties. 
  1. Write to all affected parties to inform them that an authorship dispute has been raised. Remember that this is a confidential process so the identity of the Complainant needs to be kept confidential.
  2. Clearly outline the authorship dispute process at the start (steps, timelines, confidentiality, who will see what).
  3. Set explicit expectations about respectful communication and academic professionalism.
  4. Provide options for private check‑ins before or after discussions.
  5. Normalise that disputes are common in research and not a sign of personal failure.
  6. Acknowledge power differentials openly (keep front of mind – is something not being said?).
  7. Reinforce that no party will be penalised for taking part or raising concerns.
  8. Where there is a power differential, avoid requiring participants to confront or speak directly to more senior colleagues/supervisors if this is a known issue or if requested; offer shuttle mediation or written input instead.

Documents: process document, authorship criteria, guidance from appropriate stakeholders (funders, publishers, ANU Policies and Procedures)

  1. Establish authorship conventions for the publication/discipline in question
Be aware that authorship conventions vary across disciplines, see guidance material for the minimum threshold for authorship noting that some journals, disciplines and institutions may require a higher threshold.
  1. Gather information – good record keeping is essential

Seek information, including documentation, from all parties about their understanding of the authorship of the disputed publication. 

  1. Consider and agree on who needs to participate. If there are a high number of authors, participants in this process may need to be limited.
  2. Request existing documents e.g. Authorship agreement or authorship form; any relevant records (emails, notes, meeting minutes) relating to discussions on authorship; publication drafts; related publications (e.g. conference abstracts).
  3. Seek information on personal experiences (e.g. Conduct interviews, hold meetings and/or request written statements). Accommodate the wishes of individuals as to how they wish to provide information. Individuals should be enabled to bring a support person when/if they attend an interview. Records need to be kept from interviews and meetings.
  4. Ensure views are collected on authorship and acknowledgement criteria.
  1. Review the information collected
Identify the issues and put together a report of the inputs and findings (template).
  1. If no authorship agreement exists, agree on appropriate standards for authorship and acknowledgement.
Get agreement from all parties as to authorship and acknowledgement criteria. 
  1. Suggest a solution to the dispute and negotiate an outcome
Provide a report to all parties and propose a solution. Negotiate with all parties and reach agreement on a final outcome. Ensure all parties understand that failure to reach agreement will likely result in step 13 below.
  1. Get a written agreement to the negotiated outcome.
This prevents disputes in the future.
  1. If dispute is not resolved within a reasonable timeframe refer the matter to the Research Integrity Office/Office of the Registrar.
A reasonable timeframe could be 60 working days from receiving the notice of dispute. The Research Integrity Office (researchintegrity@anu.edu.au) manages allegations of research misconduct and serious research misconduct made against staff. The Student Integrity Office (integrity@anu.edu.au) manages academic misconduct allegations (including research matters) made against students.

 

Trauma Informed Authorship Disputes

Safety​

Clearly outline the authorship dispute process at the start (steps, timelines, confidentiality, who will see what).​

Set explicit expectations about respectful communication and academic professionalism.​

Provide options for private check‑ins before or after mediation sessions.​

Normalise that disputes are common in research and not a sign of personal failure.​

Surface and acknowledge power differentials openly (keep front of mind – is something not being said?). ​

Reinforce that no party will be penalised for taking part or raising concerns.​

Avoid requiring participants to confront or speak directly to supervisors if unsafe; offer shuttle mediation or written input instead.

Trustworthiness and transparency​

Make authorship criteria transparent from the outset. ​

Explain clearly how contribution assessments will be made and how discrepancies will be handled.​

Share the rationale for decisions or recommendations at each stage.​

Use consistent communication channels (written summaries after meetings).​

Provide clear definitions of roles and boundaries. ​

Be explicit about limits of confidentiality (e.g., if issues of misconduct arise).​

Avoid “surprise” outcomes.​

Peer support and collective care​

Encourage participants to bring a support person if appropriate. ​

Provide access to independent research integrity staff, not just line management.​

Offer debriefing spaces after mediation, especially for junior researchers.​

Encourage areas to hold regular team conversations about authorship norms and standards.​

Collaboration and mutuality ​

Facilitate shared creation of authorship contribution statements.​

Emphasise that authorship agreements are collective, not imposed.​

Encourage participants to explore overlapping perspectives instead of defending positions.​

Name power dynamics neutrally (“There is an inherent supervisory power differential here…”).​

Ask parties what they need in order to feel equal in the process.​

Use “power with, not power over” approaches to authorship order negotiations.​

Empowerment and choice ​

Offer multiple modes for participation: written submissions, private meetings, or joint sessions.​

Allow individuals to pause the process if overwhelmed or distressed.​

Offer clear options for next steps (e.g., mediation > formal review > supervision committee).​

Encourage participants to identify their own contributions using recognised criteria.​

Create space to appeal or revisit decisions as new contributions are made.​

Help participants understand their rights under authorship policies.​

Page updated August 2026

 

Reference documents

Use contact details to request an alternative file format.

Policies

Related links

Contact