Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Authorship agreements benefit researchers and research culture

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7, pages 2044–2045 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Authorship disagreements occur more often than we might think1. These disputes may stem from miscommunication, power imbalances or the complexity of collaborative research2. Conflicts and stress over authorship may disparately affect vulnerable parties such as women, individuals from minority groups, graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and international trainees and faculty3,4. When disputes are raised, they are typically directed to journal editorial offices who then refer the authors back to their institutions for resolution. However, institutions are unprepared for this task because they lack appropriate policies. Our survey of US doctoral institutions with high or very high research activity (Carnegie R1 and R2 institutions) revealed that only about 25% have publicly available authorship policies, and even fewer (only 15%) include a dispute resolution process in their policies5.

A written authorship agreement, formulated as a living document (rather than a static contract) and discussed openly among collaborators early in a project, offers several benefits. Such agreements can foster open, transparent decision making about authorship by guiding collaborators in aligning expectations and goals at the beginning of a project. They can also prevent tension and misunderstanding, and help collaborators to avoid disputes. Finally, completed agreements can aid in resolving disputes that do arise6.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Smith, E. et al. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 1967–1993 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ross, M. B. et al. Nature 608, 135–145 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ni, C., Smith, E., Yuan, H., Larivière, V. & Sugimoto, C. R. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe4639 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chander, S. et al. Ann. Intensive Care 13, 56 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Rasmussen, L. M., Williams, C. E., Hausfeld, M. M., Banks, G. C. & Davis, B. C. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 3393–3413 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Norman, M. K., Proulx, C. N., Rubio, D. M. & Mayowski, C. A. Account. Res. 30, 379–392 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 2024200. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The funder had no role in the decision to publish or the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Lisa M. Rasmussen

  2. Graduate School, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Lisa M. Rasmussen & Katherine Hall-Hertel

  3. Department of Management, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    George Banks & Scott Tonidandel

  4. Office of Assessment and Accreditation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Elise Demeter

  5. Organizational Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    Holly D. Holladay-Sandidge & Andrew McBride

Authors
  1. Lisa M. Rasmussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Banks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elise Demeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Holly D. Holladay-Sandidge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew McBride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Katherine Hall-Hertel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Scott Tonidandel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Rasmussen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rasmussen, L.M., Banks, G., Demeter, E. et al. Authorship agreements benefit researchers and research culture. Nat Hum Behav 7, 2044–2045 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01758-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01758-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing