SAFE Labs

PALMLab_2026:

Current standards for authorship (such as by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the American Psychological Association) require a writing contribution to the research publication. Instead, the PALM Lab believes that all researchers contributing to a scientific publication should be recognized (“a contributorship model”), and adopts the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to assign credit and authorship. CRediT lists 14 research roles that contribute to research outputs, listed below with brief explanations as how they might pertain to the PALM Lab:

• Conceptualization - The formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
• Data curation - Data management, including generating metadata, cleaning and maintaining research data
• Formal analysis - Application of statistical, mathematical, and/or computational techniques to analyse experimental data.
• Funding acquisition - Acquisition of the financial support for conducting the research
• Investigation - Conducting the experiments for data collection
• Methodology - Design of the experiment
• Project administration - Coordination of the research activity
• Resources - Provision of any equipment
• Software - Programming and testing of experimental code.
• Supervision - Oversight for the research activity, including mentorship.
• Validation - Verification of the overall reproducibility of results/experiments.
• Visualization - Preparation of the published work, specifically data presentation.
• Writing – original draft - Preparation of the initial draft.
• Writing – review and editing - Critical review, commentary or revision.

The standard for authorship on any research publication from the PALM Lab is to have adequate involvement in at least one of the above roles, with the following as minimum requirements:

• Investigation - The researcher was responsible for data collection of at least a third (1/3) of the sample size in any experiment. (Assistance with EEG preparation does not count towards this.)
• Validation - Conducted code review at least once, producing a report on the computational reproducibility of the results and experiment.
• Writing - Provided comments or suggestions that both the first author and William agrees made a significant impact on the communication of the ideas or results. That is, the review went beyond grammatical edits or syntax changes.

CompGeoLab_2026:

• We do not view authorship as a zero-sum game.
• Authorship in publications should be explicitly discussed between everyone involved as early as possible, ideally as soon as a project starts.
• Projects that lab members bring with them do not automatically confer authorship rights to either Leo or other lab members.
• However, if work is conducted on them during the course of being present in the lab, acknowledgments would be appreciated (funding acknowledgments are necessary).
• Projects that are collaborated on between lab members confer authorship to those directly involved, whether that collaboration is intellectual, technical, or data sharing. For example, writing code to support analysis or simulation would confer authorship.
• Sharing information during group meetings does not automatically confer authorship.
• If material intellectual contributions (i.e., new directions, solutions to problems, specific and directed project ideas) are made by lab members, that would confer authorship.

Anonymous lab:

Co-authorship on a paper can be earned through substantial intellectual contribution (e.g., development of ideas, interpretation of results) or contribution to data collection, analysis, and/or writing. Contribution of data alone does not usually merit authorship, but data contributors should be given the opportunity to be co-authors by providing additional contributions. Similarly, using someone’s code that was developed for a prior project does not in itself warrant co-authorship. However, if that person provides additional intellectual input such as adapting the code, interpreting results, contributing to writing authorship should be considered.

CCMLab_2026:

Authorship, and authorship order, is something that should be discussed early on in a project’s life. We should strive to be generous in including co-authors, but also bear in mind that all listed co-authors must have made a tangible intellectual contribution to the work, whether we’re talking about a manuscript, abstract, or poster. An “intellectual contribution” could be assistance with study design, data analysis, or writing. And all co-authors are expected to provide feedback on drafts of outgoing work. In the vast majority of cases, it’s pretty clear-cut who should be included on a paper, and there are no problems. However, to avoid any potential conflicts, it’s best to hash these sorts of things out early.

Examples of important contributions to our work that that don’t necessarily reach the threshold for authorship (but should always be acknowledged in a paper) are data collection and helping with figures. Students who contribute in these ways should be given opportunities to become more involved in order to get on a paper if they have the interest, time, and ability to, but that’s not always going to be possible, which is also fine.

ErnstGroup_2026:

In terms of authorship on the paper, this is always somewhat tricky. It is best to define that early on and to be clear about it. I’ve seen some unfortunate conflicts over the years because this was not well defined. My approach is to have more rather than fewer authors (if in doubt add them). Author order should be based on input to the research and/or writing, not on seniority. I don’t believe however to stack people’s resumes by putting lots of authors on every paper for that reason alone!

MayorLab_2026:

Authorship Policy: For research articles, the main person that led and executed the work will be the first author and is expected to coordinate the manuscript completion and submission. Other lab members who generated original data included in the manuscript or participated in some aspects of the work will be listed as author, including in some cases people who developed unpublished methods/reagents that led to some key results or provided mentorship for the work. Each co-author is expected to contribute to the manuscript preparation. Order of authorship should represent the time invested in the study. In some cases, co-authorship will be considered if two members worked together to develop the whole project and spend similar time on it. After a member leave the lab, first co-authorship can be granted if another lab member becomes significantly more involved to push the story out. Concerns about authorships should ideally be raised at the early stage of the manuscript writing (or before initiating additional work for a second submission).

MindaLab_2026:

Authors of journal articles and chapters are expected to have made a concrete contribution to the project, and/or paper. For example, the following are all justifications for inclusion as an author. • You designed one or more experiments in the paper. • You wrote the initial draft for a major section. • You wrote the entire paper. • You designed and carried out the analyses. In many cases, you might help with projects, but the contribution is not quite enough to warrant inclusion as an author. The following are several examples. • You helped to carry out data collection. • You created the reference section, table, or figure. 15

• You scored a test or created a data set. • You helped to proofread or edit. In these cases, you will be acknowledged by name in the paper.

VORTEXLab_2026:

• All authors must meet 3 criteria:
  1. Substantial contributions to one of:
     • Study conception/design: This includes authors who are no longer in the lab, but came up with the core idea
     • Acquisition of data: Individuals must be integral to the acquisition (e.g., would the study have been completed without you?). This includes collaborators who recruited, scheduled, or managed participants on a day-to-day basis. For example, entering LabChart comments does not qualify authorship, but taking care of the testing environment while a senior trainee operates the ultrasound does.
     • Analysis/Interpretation of data: By default, I expect the primary trainee to be the point-person, delegating analysis tasks to those best suited to the task. As this may largely be beyond the view of the PI, this fluid environment should be noted and identified in regular meetings for early transparency.
  2. Drafting/Reviewing the paper for important intellectual content: I expect all identified contributing authors from (1) to engage in the review process. This can be daunting for junior trainees out-of-field, but I encourage you to put in the effort to contribute in depth to a discussion point, and particularly the story-crafting element of the written work.
  3. Final approval of the version to be published: All authors should be aware when and where the final paper will be submitted. No surprises!

LNN-UCPH_2026:

In line with the ICMJE recommendations on Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors, authorship should be based on the following four criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Accountability for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Importantly, we consider substantial contributions to data acquisition or analysis alone to be sufficient for authorship on the primary project manuscript, provided that criteria 2–4 are also met.

The sharing of data, however, is not considered sufficient for authorship; in such cases, appropriate credit should instead be given by citing a data descriptor and/or dataset DOI. Authorship is appropriate when the dataset owner provides substantial intellectual input into the research or when required by a data use agreement.

BoumendilLab_2026:

Authorships : The lab member(s) taking on the lead role in a project is expected to be first author on future publications related to that project (talk to me if you are unsure). I will typically be the last author, although specific cases can be discussed. Other lab members and collaborators helping during the course of the project will be added to the author list, and their placement will be discussed with all parties involved in the paper. As revisions can be intense at times and we are a small lab, we tend to involve all lab members in experiments to be performed during revisions. All roles will be defined and clearly stated in publications using the CRediT taxonomy (see : https://credit.niso.org/).

Open science policies : Along with submission to a scientific journal, our manuscripts will be submitted to biorXiV, the open repository for manuscripts in the life sciences. We will always choose to publish open-access (i.e published papers are distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers), unless the costs for such become prohibitive, as unfortunately is already happening. If we do not publish open-access, we will find other ways to make our publications free of access charges.

GalupaLab_2025:

Please find important information about publishing (including authorships, open science policies, choice of journals) in the Lab Guide: Galupa_lab_guide_shared.

CzarkwianiLab_2026:

As a guide the following are typically accepted as “acknowledgement” level contributions rather than constituting authorship (though exceptions can be made)

• contributing a commonly available reagent/piece of equipment/animal material: we often ask the community for sharing a reagent or piece of equipment and that is considered collegial behaviour and there should not be an expectation of authorship-level contribution to a project. IF the reagent/animal material is difficult to obtain, has been made by the person themselves at their cost and time expense and effort, then it might be deemed an authorship-level contribution. If the person also helped you use the equipment in a way which requires scientific idea generation or analysis then it may also be deemed an authorship-level contribution.
• facility usage - there are clear guidelines at CMCB for paid facility usage and acknowledgement
• reading and commenting on a manuscript draft with no prior significant intellectual contribution to the project
• non-independent or routine experimental contributions. For example, if a rotation student is taught techniques and carries out standardized protocols, stainings, imaging, and figure prep or if a research technician conducts standard protocols at the request of the project leader and the results end up contributing to a publication, but there was no independent intellectual contribution to the design or analysis of the experiment, then that persons contribution will be acknowledged but they will not be an author on a publication. On the other side, if that person has an independent scientific idea for which experiment to perform or how to significantly improve an experimental procedure or has generated a large amount of data which is indispensable for the publication of a manuscript based on these results, they might be considered an author.

LMUPsychologicalMethods_2026:

We do not follow the common practice of automatically including the chair holder on the paper.

First authors are usually those who have written the majority of the first formulated draft of a paper. This also applies when students publish their theses and turn their submitted work into a draft paper. In psychology, last authors are often perceived as the supervisors of the project, so it is common, for example, to list the doctoral supervisor as the last author.

OttLab_2025:

Authorship vs acknowledgement is not always obvious in advance, but typically all contributors to a paper are included as authors, where contribution is broadly defined by CRediT Taxonomy (https://credit.niso.org/). For example, developing a new technique for a project, or contributing previously unpublished data/figures would constitute authorship. Conversely, routine experimental work, sharing basic analysis code, or proof-reading a paper would not constitute authorship. Authorship is ultimately decided in discussions between the PI, project lead(s), and any other potential authors. Although the scientific process is unpredictable, authorship will be discussed when a lab member begins, or becomes involved with, a project. Whenever possible, we publish a matrix of contributions at the end of each paper.

PHASELab_2026:

In my opinion, all contributions to a scientific paper should be acknowledged with co-authorship. Worrying about the contribution to the writing itself is old-fashioned and limited, and I have yet to see any particularly strong argument for excluding technicians, e.g. “just because they did the technical work” or “because they don’t need papers for their job evaluations”. Input and discussion of ideas, project implementation, technical assistance, supervision, data collection, statistical analysis, writing and critical revision of the manuscript, these are all potentially grounds for authorship. We don’t lose out by including more authors, particularly if all contributions are detailed to allow for a detailed dissection of who did what for each project/paper. “Gift” authorship is not okay – including people as co-authors who really did not contribute at all. But realistically, I feel this is less of a problem in our current system than under-acknowledgement of research contributions with co-authorship, particularly when under-acknowledgement disproportionately affects people from demographics which are currently underrepresented at higher academic levels.

Although not all journals require an “Author Contributions” section, I do see this as a way forward to appease academics with more conventional ideas of what “authorship” should entail, as well as giving fair credit to everyone involved in the project. Hence, for my research group, please just always include this section in the manuscript submission, whether it is asked for or not. I would hope we can also have frank and open discussions about contributions to each manuscript and hence author order. I may not always get this right! I may not directly oversee every stage of the project, and may just have a general idea of who was involved with each step, so please bring this up if you are even slightly concerned or feel it may be unfair.

ReinhardLab_2025:

It is impossible to do modern neuroscience alone. Techniques are too difficult, algorithms too complicated for one person to be able to do everything. In our lab, PhDs and postdocs will have their main project, but everyone will be involved in at least one additional project by contributing specific expertise. Hence, papers with only 2 authors (First + PI) will be impossible or at least extremely rare. We also don’t believe in authorship gatekeeping or that papers are worth less if there are more authors. The following steps are taken for transparent authorships:

We generally follow the CRediT Taxonomy guidelines of what authorship constitutes. For example, developing a new technique for a project, or contributing previously unpublished data/figures would constitute authorship. Conversely, routine experimental work, sharing basic analysis code, or proof-reading a paper would not constitute authorship.

Authorship will be discussed with all involved researchers whenever a person starts contributing to a new project or a new collaboration is established.

INSIGHTLab_2026:

Be comprehensive and generous in crediting contributions. Nothing is lost by giving people fair credit. For published work, report each author’s contribution according to the CRediT taxonomy. When planning the work, fill out a CRediT taxonomy to define intended roles at the start. If project roles and levels of contribution change, update the CRediT taxonomy accordingly. Before publishing a version of the manuscript, check that all authors recognize the CRediT taxonomy as accurate representation of the work done.

UraiLab_2026:

Scientific autorship is a tricky business. I aim to discuss authorship early on, clarify expectations, and give regular updates when a project changes. If you are unsure about authorship, please let me know asap.

I aim to have an honest authorship discussion at the moment a project looks like it might become a paper. Early on, we will try to settle on an initial authorship order that everybody is happy with, and clarify the expectations of everyone in the group. When the work changes, new people come on board or someone leaves, we should discuss again. Ideally, we discuss authorship expectations at every 6-month review meeting.

Whatever authorship scheme we settle on, I encourage using the Credit scheme with additional detail to keep track of everybody’s contributions.

AIDOSLab_2026:

When submitting a paper to a machine learning venue, the order of authors should reflect their contribution and relevance for the project. Typically, this will mean that junior members, such as Ph.D. and graduate students, will be placed before more senior members. To assess whether a person is qualified to be an author on a manuscript, we will follow a set of rules. Anyone listed on a paper as an author has to satisfy all of the following criteria:2

• 1. They have made substantial intellectual contributions to at least a subset of the work described in the manuscript.
• 2. They have participated in writing or revising the manuscript.
• 3. They are aware of the existence of the manuscript and of the intent to submit the manuscript to a certain venue.
• 4. They agree with the content of the manuscript and are willing to vouch for the correctness of the work.

In particular, there will not be any ‘courtesy authorships.’ Unless you raise this an issue with me, I will typically assume that there are no conflicts with these guidelines. Let me know well before the submission if this is not the case! Following these rules is a way for all of us to demonstrate scientific integrity. The main idea behind this rule is that everyone listed as an author should be comfortable with giving a talk on the work. If this is not the case, something is wrong.

Neurolinguistics-UZH_2026:

Your notebooks as evidence: Documenting your work serves as important evidence of your contributions to projects. Your weekly reports, project updates, and documented analyses all contribute to the record of your scientific involvement.

Decision support: When authorship decisions are unclear or disputed, I will use weekly reports and notebook documentation to help make fair decisions based on the actual contributions made to the work.

CoenLab_2025:

Authorship vs acknowledgement is not always clear for a publication, but typically all contributors to a paper are included as authors, where contribution is broadly defined by CRediT Taxonomy. For example, developing a new technique for a project, or contributing previously unpublished data/figures would constitute authorship. Conversely, routine experimental work, sharing basic analysis code, or proof-reading a paper would not constitute authorship. Authorship is ultimately decided in discussions between the group leader, project lead(s), and any other potential authors. Although the scientific process is unpredictable, authorship will be discussed when a lab member begins, or becomes involved with, a project. Whenever possible, we publish a matrix of contributions at the end of each paper.

EnvironmentalModellingResearchGroup_2026:

Authorship on any work will be openly discussed in lab meetings and should include everyone who contributed significantly to the work being presented. Where conflict arises, Jon Hill will facilitate discussion to resolve the conflict.

EpiForecasts_2026:

We err on the side of inclusion when not sure if someone’s contributions warrant authorship, but don’t award authorship based on friendship, reciprocity or seniority. While authorship does not require writing any of the paper, we will share drafts and submitted version with all coauthors and give opportunities for critical input. If in doubt, we give more time.

For any group publication, group authorship should be agreed based on the value and volume of each person’s contribution, with more supervisory roles towards the end. Where an order between co-authors cannot clearly be resolved we will randomise the order.

GrangeLab_2026:

From 2020 onwards, in the lab we employ the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system for identifying author contributions on papers from the lab. Anyone who contributes one of the roles listed on CRediT will belisted as an author on the paper. The paper will then identify which authors fulfilled which roles according to CRediT.

As principle investigator of the lab, I expect to be an author on all papers produced by lab members. But please note that I do not get automatic authorship; rather, my expectation is that you should involve me in your work to such a degree that I have earned authorship on the paper by engaging with at least one of the CRediT roles.

MarshallLab_2026:

If someone has contributed something to a paper then they should be a named author, with their contribution clearly stated within the paper, following the CRediT guide: CRediT author statement | Elsevier. This includes undergraduate students and technicians. You should check with me about what a contribution looks like, before offering someone authorship. For example, someone feeding your animals whilst you’re on holiday isn’t a contribution, but someone carrying out an extra experiment for you would be. Finally, you should never submit a paper or pre-print without prior approval of all authors.

SuperLab_2026:

According to the criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), to qualify for authorship, individuals must meet all the following conditions:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published; and
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The order of authors should reflect the relative contributions of each individual to the work. The order should be agreed upon before manuscript writing, but it is subject to change (slightly) as peer review progresses.

The first author is typically the person who contributed the most to the project and writing. In cases of equal contribution, the default is co-first authorship.

The last author is usually the lead supervisor who secured funding and oversaw the research. Exceptions can be discussed and agreed upon.

The Superlab is committed to mentoring and recognizing the contributions of students and trainees. When students make substantial contributions to a project, they will be offered authorship and mentorship on writing and publishing.

AeryJonesLab_2026:

We follow ICMJE authorship guidelines. Authorship is granted when the paper could not have happened without their contribution. This could be a substantial intellectual, data collection, analysis, or data sharing contribution. All authors are expected to contribute to manuscript writing, editing, and journal revisions.

AllisonAdolescentResearchLab_2026:

Authorship is based on meaningful intellectual contribution. We will discuss expectations early (during our one-on-one meetings and/or project-specific meetings), revisit as needed as contributions evolve, and prioritize transparency on how authorship order is selected. I expect that all authors will meet the ICJME criteria for authorship. In the event that you have contributed to a project but do not meet authorship criteria, an acknowledgement in a manuscript or presentation would be appropriate to expect.

AlyLab_2026:

At the start of a new project, the student or post-doc taking on the lead role can expect to be first author and corresponding author (talk to Mariam about it if you aren’t sure). Mariam will typically be the last author, unless the project is primarily under the guidance of another PI and Mariam is involved as a secondary PI – then Mariam will be second to last and the main PI will be last. Students and post-docs who help over the course of the project may be added to the author list depending on their contribution, and their placement will be discussed with all parties involved in the paper. If a student or post-doc takes on a project but subsequently hands it off to another student or post-doc, they will most likely lose first-authorship to that student or post-doc, unless co-first-authorship is appropriate. All of these issues will be discussed openly, and you should feel free to bring them up if you are not sure of your authorship status or want to challenge it.

BahlaiLab_2026:

If you made a meaningful intellectual, analytical, methodological, writing, or data contribution to a project, I believe we should generally err on the side of inclusion and recognition rather than exclusion- collaborative works between lab members, undergrad assistants, and external collaborators are encouraged. Authorship is not pie, giving a slice to others that contributed to the work does not deplete anyone else’s slices. For authors in the middle of the list, I aim to balance contribution with equity. Contributions matter, but I also recognize that opportunities, confidence, seniority, and structural barriers are not distributed equally. Following principles similar to those outlined by Liboiron and colleagues, authorship discussions should be transparent, collaborative, and attentive to fairness as well as productivity.

BIRDLab_2026:

We use the four ICMJE criteria as a helpful guide for expectations. In general, authors complete/agree to all four of the below items:

• substantial contributions to conception/design or data;
• drafting or critical revision;
• final approval; and
• accountability for the work.

Proofreading, brainstorming, and routine technical help normally earn acknowledgements, not authorship; these are things lab members provide each other without any expectation of authorship.

ChoryLab_2026:

The “Passing the Baton” scenario: Imagine Student A starts a project, works on it for two years, and then graduates. Student B picks it up and needs three more years to complete the work. It’s like a research relay race where both students have run their laps, and the project crosses the finish line thanks to their combined efforts. In this case, it’s crucial to acknowledge and fairly attribute authorship to both students. However, when a student leaves the lab and doesn’t continue working on the project, they naturally relinquish control over its direction. This is perfectly fine and sometimes passing the baton is the best career option for all involved.

CognAcLab_2026:

It is recognized that the list of authors may include individuals who make a limited, yet important contribution to the project. For example, an individual who proposes a critical idea or contributes essential skills in a substantive way (e.g., takes on a specialized analysis). Authorship should not be expected for more standard contributions such as ideas that come out during lab meeting or sharing expertise in particular analyses.

ContextualDynamicsLab_2026:

The Contextual Dynamics Lab follows the NIH Guidelines for Authorship in considering whether your contribution to a project merits authorship on the paper. If you have made a non-trivial contribution to a project but did not meet the requirements for authorship, you will instead receive a citation in the acknowledgements section of the paper. In general, you likely meet the requirements for authorship if you contributed in any of the following ways:

• Drafted the manuscript (this warrants first authorship)

• Came up with the idea or made other substantial intellectual contributions that meaningfully shaped the trajectory of the project

• Carried out an original experimental study (e.g. that you designed or implemented)

• Carried out non-trivial data analyses (e.g. more complicated than t-tests)

• Contributed novel tools or resources to the project that haven’t been published yet

NOTE: Conference posters and abstracts generally have substantially less stringent authorship requirements than formal papers. The general rule of thumb for posters is that all project team members should be co-authors. You are unlikely to meet the requirements for authorship if your contributions were limited to the following:

• Running experimental participants for an already-designed and coded-up study

• Running trivial data analyses (e.g. t-tests or similar)

• Getting trained by one of the other project members on a project-related task

• Training another project member on a project-related task

• Sharing already-published tools or resources

• Editing or commenting on a draft of the manuscript

The final determination for who will be an author on each lab paper (and in what order) will be made by Jeremy, following open discussions with project team members.

CTML_2026:

All authors need a chance to comment on the work before manuscript submission. Determine authorship early in the research project to avoid conflict or misunderstandings. In general, the first author does most of the writing, but consult with your supervisor on a case-by-case basis. Co-first authorship should be determined by who led the drafting and submission process, not necessarily the original intellectual contribution.

DaRLLab_2026:

As a leading author, please highlight everyone’s contribution in time (not right before paper submission) so others know they have actually contributed along the way - that’s teamwork.

• What is considered a contribution?
  • Discussions should not be counted as contributions; implementation/theoretically sound ideas could be.
  • Same for writing - proof-reading should not be counted as contributions; actual writing could be.

DiffenbaughClimateLab_2026:

Co-authorship is best discussed early rather than late. Ideally, this includes before analysis begins, and if not then certainly before writing begins. And, it is important to be aware that additional contributions may be necessary in order to thoroughly and convincingly answer the scientific questions that are asked, meaning that in some cases it may be necessary to seek out collaborators later in the process (including, in some instances, at the journal revision stage). However, whenever possible, students and advisors should seek to communicate early and often about co-authorship - when in doubt, discuss.

HealthPolicyDataScienceLab_2026:

It is an expectation in the Lab that no new authors are invited to join an existing Lab project (i.e., where Dr. Rose is the lead PI) without the prior agreement of, at a minimum, Dr. Rose and the first author(s).

The Lab follows the ICMJE recommendations regarding who is included as an author.

What does first authorship mean in our Lab? Being the first author typically means that you are: (1) an intellectual lead on the project, (2) making major contributions conducting the scientific work (e.g., developing methodology, analyzing data), and (3) a main writer on the manuscript, usually crafting the first draft. For some projects, a first authorship role may also involve project management with collaborators and partners. All of these activities are done under the mentorship of Dr. Rose as the PI with substantial feedback in an apprenticeship model.

KirbyLab_2026:

Second author is the person who, aside from the first author, participated most completely in design, experimental execution, data analysis, and manuscript preparation for the project as a whole. Toward this end, this person may have:

1. contributed whole figures or panels independently, OR
2. substantially contributed to many figures or panels while working with someone else (typically the first author), OR
3. taken charge of revisions for a paper begun by a first author who is unwilling or unable to complete them. a. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, this may also be a case that warrants co-first authorship, or assumption of first author position.

KleinerLab_2026:

Papers. In our lab, the person who writes the manuscript is the first author. First authorship may be shared with a co-author who plays a major role in experimental design, data collection, or analysis. Our PI is the corresponding author on all published papers, but may share corresponding authorship with the relevant first author trainee. The following contributions may qualify for authorship and should be discussed throughout project development:

• Experimental design
• Data collection
• Data processing and analysis
• Graphic design
• Writing
• Editing
• Consulting that majorly contributes to the project

Acknowledgements will be used for anyone who contributes to a project but does not rise to the threshold of authorship.

LePenLab_2026:

• The PI will make every effort to clarify co–first contributions in reference letters, emphasizing that co–first authors are full first authors and highlighting the lab member’s leadership and hard work in collaborative projects. • A scientist who has performed a substantial amount of work toward a project—even if the specific data do not appear in the final version of the paper—should be included as an author. Effort matters as much as outcome. • Giving credit is essential to maintaining a collaborative and productive environment. Lab members are expected to acknowledge meaningful contributions from others in the lab.

LoaizaCAMLab_2026:

Our lab follows APA guidelines with respect to authorship, such that the individual’s contribution to the work determines their authorship or acknowledgement on the final product of the research (e.g., a peer-reviewed publication and/or conference presentation). Specifically, individuals will be included as co-authors if they intellectually contribute to the research by actively working on research design, providing intensive work on study materials and analysis, and/or drafting/revising the write-up of the work. The authorship order will be explicitly discussed and agreed upon at the start of the project and potentially revisited if contributions change during the course of the project. In most cases, graduate students and postdocs will be first author for their own projects and Vanessa will be the last author, with other collaborators ordered according to their contributions to the work. We will use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to help us determine the authorship order, and there should be open discussion of any concerns.

MaLab_2026:

Authorship on papers is usually obvious, but the grey area is when smaller contributions warrant authorship. I expect that all authors contribute to the ideas in a project. As a concrete proxy for such contributions, I expect that for a lab member to be an author, they attend (and speak in) the project meetings from the moment they are brought onto the project. Sometimes, you ask someone (in or outside of the lab) for help several times and they are interested in the project; then, they can be brought on board as an author. If someone “only” assists with data collection without a broader intellectual input, then that is usually an acknowledgement in the paper, not authorship.

• CRediT is a system for recognizing contributions to a paper, and we can use it as a guide to discuss authorship. For lab members, some combination of conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, and writing is usually required to be an author.

McCainLab_2026:

Authorship. You are expected to be first author on all manuscripts from your degree and those you have taken a lead in development and writing. You are expected to publish them in a timely manner. Any collaborators on a project in the lab or outside CU who have made a substantial contribution to at least two aspects of the project (e.g., data collection and writing) should be listed as an author on manuscripts and presentations. If the project involves data collected from my grant funding then I should be the last author. All authors must read and approve of manuscript submissions; ideally presentations as well.

McDermottLab_2026:

One common guideline is for a person to be an author on a paper if they have been substantially involved in at least two of the following four activities: 1) designing or conceiving the study, 2) collecting data, 3) analyzing data, 4) writing the paper. It is often pretty clear what constitutes substantial involvement, but there are borderline cases where the PI has to make a judgment call. If you are unsure about whether you should be an author on a paper coming out of our lab, ask me and we can talk about it. In general, undergraduate RAs who help collect data are not authors on papers except in cases where they have been unusually involved (which we welcome, but are in practice not all that common).

MemoLab_2026:

Authorship will be discussed prior to the beginning of a new project, so that expectations are clearly defined. However, changes to authorship may occur over the course of a project if a new person becomes involved or if someone is not fulfilling their planned role. In general, I expect that graduate students and postdocs will be first authors on publications on which they are the primary lead, and I will be the last author.

NicholGroup_2026:

Generally, the student or postdoc who made the largest contribution to a piece of work will be the first author. Multiple students and postdocs can be co-first authors, though there is usually still a “first cofirst” author. If most of the supervision and responsibility for the project rests with me, I will be the last author and corresponding author. (Any questions about the paper should be directed to me, since such questions may arrive long after you have left.) Other authors on the paper should have made a substantial contribution to the work, such as fabricating the device, or performing a theoretical calculation. If a group member’s only contribution was fabricating the device that was used for an experiment, that group member will be an author on the first paper using the device. Subsequent experiments papers do not need to include that person as an author but can include them in the acknowledgments.

PeelleLab_2026:

In my view there are two key requirements to being an author:

• Contribute to the intellectual scientific content of the manuscript in a meaningful way.

• Contribute to the writing of the manuscript in a meaningful way.

Note that “collect data”, “analyze data”, or “fund the study” aren’t on the list. Those are very important parts of a paper, but do not (on their own) warrant authorship. Being an author means understanding the content and being willing to take public responsibility for the work: a large part of this concerns the theoretical motivation and implications of the research. In practice theoretical contributions are most often made through helping with the study design, data interpretation, and discussion about a topic.

This doesn’t mean that as an undergraduate student or research assistant you can’t be an author on a paper. Of course, if the study goes well and you are involved, you might be. However, you will need to know enough (or learn enough) about the subject to understand what we’ve done, and to significantly contribute to the writing. I won’t add you to a paper just because I like you and want to help you out; I will consider giving you the opportunity to be involved to a degree that you have earned authorship, if you are willing to take on the challenge.

Typically one person will take on the main responsibility for writing the paper, and this person will be the first author.

I assume that, unless we have talked about it, I will be an author on papers coming out of the lab. This does not mean that you should add me on to papers as a courtesy; it means that I expect you to include me in the process of discussion and writing in a way that merits authorship. In other words, the same approach I take with you.

POISLab_2026:

Generally, contributing to study design, running statistical analyses, and writing sections of the manuscript warrant authorship—running participants usually does not. Other lab members who help with a project in some meaningful way may be added to the author list as well. Although not required by APA, I expect students to contribute to some writing in a manuscript as part of authorship, so they develop their writing skills and learn about the publication process. Order of authorship will be discussed with everyone as soon as is reasonable (e.g., once roles have been outlined), but this may change depending on how responsibilities shift throughout the project. Either way, initial and subsequent discussions of authorship should include all named co-authors. If you have concerns about authorship, please bring it up with your project lead or me at any point.

RichardsonLab_2026:

Coauthorship is earned by making an important intellectual contribution to someone else’s project (helping out with field or lab work is, emphatically, not enough). Examples of intellectual contributions include: contributing to the design of an experiment or field study; analyzing or visualizing data in a way that provides new insight; sharing code or insight that changes the message of the paper; preparing graphics or writing substantial portions of text; providing critical and constructive feedback on drafts (but note: editing for language and style, which changes the words but not the message, is not sufficient for coauthorship). Each year we will devote at least one lab meeting to discussing the general criteria for coauthorship.

SantiagoTiradoLab_2026:

In our lab, every member should be able to contribute to each other’s projects without the expectation of a personal reward (see the lab motto at the top of this page). This is the basis of being good lab citizens and colleagues - helping with set up of an experiment, like starting cultures, or with taking out plates from incubators, does not constitutes a significant intellectual contribution to warrant an authorship on a paper. However, performing an actual experiment, interpreting results and providing useful troubleshooting or novel ideas in the context of the project, or analyzing data and putting together figures, things that either allow the project to be published or provide a significant intellectual contribution that allows the project to move forward, all of that deserves an authorship.

ShireyLab_2026:

Our Lab’s authorship policy is opt-out, meaning that individuals who have made significant contributions to the work have the option to remove themselves from authorship at any point in time. Those who have made significant contributions to the work are automatically included in the co-authorship line.

Significant contributions can include any of the following:

• Significant curatorial or digitization work directly supporting the project.
• Wet lab or field work directly supporting the project.
• Development of analytical or data processing pipelines and workflows.
• Drafting, writing, and providing constructive feedback on manuscripts or other end products.

Author order is typically decided by having an open conversation about effort spent on individual projects. Typically, the first author is the person who took the initiative to write the majority of the manuscript. The senior (last) author is typically the PI, although this need not always be the case. For example, postdocs or senior graduate students who spend time mentoring may be elevated to the senior authorship role.

VanderHeidenLab_2026:

We aim for all intellectual and experimental effort to be fairly reflected in manuscript authorship. This is typically done through informal conversations between the project’s primary contributor(s), collaborating lab members, and Matt. Ultimately, the first author(s) and Matt make decisions surrounding authorship. Importantly, an individual’s position in the lab does not affect one’s ability to be an author, and everyone who makes a meaningful contribution is included as author. We also extend authorship to personnel in core facilities who make significant intellectual contributions.

VuraWeisLab_2026:

Before starting a collaborative scientific project, it is recommended to have a conversation with Josh to decide authorship and acknowledgements to avoid future conflicts. ❖ All of the projects in our lab involve multiple people, which means all papers have multiple authors. Sometimes on a particular paper, the 2nd/3rd authors may have done a significant amount of work, so there is a potential for conflict in the authorship order. Josh’s goal is for this to integrate to fairness over the entire Ph.D., and he will discuss the decision process openly with all students.

ZETAResearchGroup_2026:

The role of second author tends to be more variable across fields and groups. Within my group, the second author is expected to play a more substantial role in ensuring reproducibility of the scientific results than most other research groups. In particular, these are recommended expectations for the second author:

• Contribute to the analysis. This role can involve double-coding (recommended), developing code in a secondary programming language, code review, or algorithm review.
• Preliminary review of the manuscript before other authors.
• Close communication with the first author in revisions based on co-author feedback or responding to peer-reviewers.
• Double check article proofs after the first author for errors.
• Meet on a regular basis with the first author.