Authorship Grids: Practical Tools to Facilitate Collaboration and Ethical Publication

Abstract

Publication of new findings and approaches in peer-reviewed journals is fundamental to advancing science. As interprofessional, team-based scientific publication becomes more common, authors need tools to guide collaboration and ethical authorship. We present three forms of authorship grids that are based on national and international author recommendations, including guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, National Institutes of Health data sharing policies, common reporting guidelines, and Good Clinical Practice standards from the International Conference on Harmonisation. The author grids are tailored to quantitative research, qualitative research, and literature synthesis. These customizable grids can be used while planning and executing projects to define each author’s role, responsibilities, and contributions as well as to guide conversations among authors and help avoid misconduct and disputes. The grids also can be submitted to journal editors and published to provide public attribution of author contributions.

Dissemination of research and new knowledge in peer-reviewed journals is fundamental to advancing science and improving human health. Evidence of effective contribution to these goals is a core component of academic success and advancement. Due to the complexity of research, health care, and quality improvement, authors often collaborate to create and disseminate scholarly work. These collaborations range from manuscripts depicting small projects with two authors in the same field and institution to manuscripts describing complex experiments with authors from different disciplines who are located around the globe. Interprofessional collaborations, also described as team science, are increasing in innovative research that extends beyond the limits of a single discipline or profession (Bennett, Gadlin, & Levine-Finley, 2010). However, collaborative writing also increases the complexity of fairly assigning credit and maintaining accountability (Cutas & Shaw, 2015).

Ethical authorship is an essential aspect of the responsible conduct of research, as identified in national guidelines (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). Despite widespread dissemination of these guidelines, inappropriate and unethical authorship persists. Among primary authors of 630 articles in six biomedical journals, 21% reported unethically including or excluding an author (Wislar, Flanagin, Fontanarosa, & DeAngelis, 2011), and 42% of articles by 60 respondents to a survey of nursing journal authors had at least one author who did not meet authorship requirements (Kennedy, Barnsteiner, & Daly, 2014). The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organization of publishers and editors of peer-reviewed journals, identified authorship issues as the most common concern of members in their ethics forums (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2014).

Reasons for unethical authorship practices are multifold. Reviewers of the literature on ethical authorship emphasize that early and effective communication is essential to avoid misconduct (Osborne & Holland, 2009; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). Despite this advice, in a 2014 study, only 40% of collaborative teams had explicit communication about authorship, and only one-third of these dialogues occurred at the start of a project (Bozeman & Youtie, 2016).

Authors note a gap between the complexity of authorship guidelines and the paucity of tools to support effective and efficient implementation during collaboration (Osborne & Holland, 2009; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). To date, there is no commonly used tool to facilitate research planning and ethical authorship and to provide transparency in attribution of contributions (Osborne & Holland, 2009; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of issues relevant to ethical collaborative authorship and present three authorship grids to facilitate planning and attribution of contributions for quantitative, qualitative, and literature-synthesis projects and research. These grids are helpful in facilitating ethical collaboration and publishing by encouraging accountability and streamlining workflow.

Defining Authorship

While requirements for authorship vary across disciplines, the majority of health-related journals use criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME). All four of the criteria, shown in Table 1, should be met by all authors; if individuals contribute work but do not meet all of the ICJME criteria, they should be acknowledged but not listed as authors (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015).

Table 1.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria

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

International Committee or Medical Journal Editors (2U15).

Journals may provide an exception to the requirement that all authors are responsible for the totality of article content, particularly for authors who make vital contributions within specific areas of expertise (Bierer, Crosas, & Pierce, 2017). For example, a statistical expert may be integral to study design, methodologic integrity, and production of results but may not be able to determine if the discussion section adequately reflects current research. To offer a second example: in community-engaged research, participants themselves may be authors for contributions to study design, execution, analysis, and dissemination but may not be able to vouch for the entirety of a manuscript. In these cases, transparency in role, work output, and final responsibility are essential (Bordeaux et al., 2007). Ideally, these contributions are delineated early in the research or publication process and can be transmitted to the journal editors (Bierer et al., 2017; Bozeman & Youtie, 2016; Snow et al., 2014).

Author Inclusion and Order

Author inclusion and byline order are common subjects of conflict (Bozeman & Youtie, 2016; Cutas & Shaw, 2015; Moher, 2014; Tilak, Prasad, & Jena, 2015). These negotiations are often complex and may be shaped by factors including power dynamics, professional needs and desires, and data ownership constraints (Bozeman & Youtie, 2016; Cutas & Shaw, 2015; Youtie & Bozeman, 2014). Within many academic communities, author order reflects contribution to the work. Ideally, all authors should jointly determine by line placement at the beginning of the project and revisit this as needed to maintain work output and author order congruence. While it is generally accepted that the first author role involves more work and carries more prestige, the importance of subsequent author order is not uniform (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015). Several disciplines place the lead author first and a senior author last (Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). The senior author is frequently the person who owned the laboratory, secured funding, and mentored the other authors (Cutas & Shaw, 2015; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012). Within many disciplines, the position of senior author carries significant prestige (Dance, 2012; Osborne & Holland, 2009; Youtie & Bozeman, 2014). Expectations for author order vary, and individuals in the same discipline or institution may have different expectations for the responsibilities related to each author position. Due to variation in interpretation of authorship responsibilities, early and clear articulation of roles and expectations is essential.

Effective and early communication between team members is so vital to interprofessional work that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) includes it as an essential step for trust building in their field guide to collaboration and team science (Bennett et al., 2010), and it has been identified as a key team-based research skill (Committee on the Science of Team Science, 2015). Authors of a recent synthesis of the qualitative literature on authorship issues concluded that “if collaborative teams have open and participative discussions about crediting… then the likelihood of bad co-authoring outcomes plummets” (Bozeman & Youtie, 2016, p. 1737). Without early communication and establishment of expectations, conflict can result (Osborne & Holland, 2009; Smith & Williams-Jones, 2012).

Proposed Method to Increase Ethical Author Attribution

Development of the Innovation

We developed author grids to fill our need for a tool to promote a collegial discussion of ethical authorship within a large team of authors. To delineate responsibilities among six authors, the first author developed the quantitative authorship grid (Table 2). This initial grid, based on ICJME criteria and the authors’ previous experiences working in teams, was used to elucidate expectations and was revised throughout the project. Authors from the original team subsequently used the grid in other collaborative groups and iteratively refined it based on project specifications, author needs, performance, and feedback. The grid was such a helpful organizational tool that we created qualitative and literature synthesis versions to meet the needs of non-quantitative research teams.

Table 2.

Sample Author Gridfor a Quantitative Manuscript

	1 st Author (Name here)	2nd Author (Name here)	3 rd Author (Name hereIn this example, a statistician)	Senior / Anchor Author (Name Here)
Responsibility
Role	Takes the lead in the project/research, moving the article through the process	Adds expertise to the team; this may include skill in data or participant access, study design, methodology expertise, or writing ability (Include specific expectations for each author)	Contributes expertise or analytic competence to the team	Contributes a depth of experience to the project, frequently serving as a mentor
Final Responsibility for Content	Responsible for all content, rechecks all factual content	Responsible for all content within the article	Responsible for all statistical techniques, analysis, and interpretation	Responsible for all content within the article
Coordination & Communication
Coordination	Sets schedule for manuscript completion, coordinates draft management Establishes and maintains a folder for document storage on an online server a Responsible for ensuring authors meetcriteria for authorship and rearranging the order of authors as needed by contributions, in conjunction with the entire author team Coordinates revision as needed with other authors Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming	Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming	Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming	Sets meetings and establishes video conferencing link for all participants Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming
Communication	Replies within 1 week to all emails (All)
	Returns drafts within 2-week time frame (All)
Meetings	Schedules all meetings, ideally 2-3 weeks in advancea Leads all meetings, sets and distributes an agenda for team meetings one day in advance Attends all meetings	Attends all meetings	Attends all meetings ivolving design, statistical analysis, and writing	Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Supports all authors to maintain focus in meetings Attends all meetings
Participant Protections
IRB application	Leads writing of IRB application	Contributes to IRB application in areas of	Contributes to IRB application in	Contributes to the IRB application
	Updates key study personnel as needed Responsible for IRB documents and continuing reviews	expertise Maintains required IRB/CITI training	areas of expertise Maintains required IRB/CITI training	through writing and revision Maintains required IRB/CITI training
	Ensures study staff are up to date on requirements
	Maintains IRB/CITI training
Study Conduct	Conducts study consistent with the protocol and protections outlined in the IRB application (All)
Data Handling	Protects participants consistent with NIH, HIPAA, and other pertinent guidelines to maintain confidentiality (All)
Design	Designs study using current literature and sound research principles	Contributes to study design, especially expertise in methodology	Contributes to study design, especially statistical expertise	Refines study design based on the current literature and sound research principles
Data
Data Acquisition	Acquires all data using procedures outlined in the study protocol and IRB application	-------	-------	Contributes to data acquisition through monetary or collegial support
Data Storage	Maintains participant confidentiality as described in the IRB proposal (All)
	Uses established naming procedures if alters dataset in any way (All)
	Stores data in a central location that is compliant with NIH and HIPAA requirements as applicable Provides other authors with appropriate access to data while protecting participants		Retains a clean copy prior to all data transformation and documents all steps in data cleaning and analysis
Data Cleaning	Cleans data using sequential steps consistent with previous literature Retains a flow chart of all data changes with references to support elimination of cases	Verifies data cleaning steps and accuracy, completeness of final dataset	Works with the primary author to clean data, conduct a missing values analysis, and impute data as needed, maintaining clear records of each step such that work can be easily reproduced	Assists with literature review to determine steps in data cleaning Assists with cleaning Verifies data cleaning steps and accuracy, completeness of final dataset
Data Ownership at Study Close	Retains a full dataset	Can retain a pdf of de-identified data for verification after publication Does not own an editable copy of final data	Retains a copy of the dataset to be able to answer statistical queries	Retains a full dataset
Data Sharing with Other Researchers	Receives all contact from other researchers Provides deidentified data per NIH guidelines	-------	-------	If the primary author is unable, manages contact from other researchers and provides a deidentified dataset per NIH guidelines
Analysis	Determines techniques prior to analysis in concert with other authors Completes analysis on (specific name here) subsection of data Verifies techniques prior to analysis	Determines techniques prior to analysis in concert with other authors Completes analysis on (specific name here) subsection of data	An integral team member in determining techniques prior to analysis Performs statistical tests as stipulated by the team, providing data and interpretation	provides a deidentified dataset per NIH guidelines Determines techniques prior to analysis in concert with other authors Oversees and assists data analysis Verifies techniques prior to analysis
Writing
Introduction	Author of first draft	3 rd review	4 th review	2nd review
Results	1st author of subsections where this author led the analysis 2nd review of all other results subsections	1st author of subsections where this author led the analysis	Works closely with other authors to ensure text adequately reflects statistical results Writes statistical methods section Reviews all sections for accuracy	3 rd review entire results section
Tables	Creates basic table, coordinates completion, and contributes data	Contributes data for table	Contributes data for table Rechecks accuracy of numbers	2nd review of table Contributes data for table
Discussion	2nd review and works closely with the senior author	3 rd review	4 th review	Author of first draft in conjunction with the primary author
Formatting	Formats document in journal’s style	-------	-------	Reviews formatting of journal’s style
References	Establishes shared database of citations using citation software Adds references as needed for authors	Provides references to 1st author	Provides references to 1st author	Reviews paper to ensure references and text citations are in order
Final Approvals and Submission
Final Document	Approves final document for submission and revisions (All)
Submission	Submits manuscript and revisions, and completes all page proofs	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms
Revision	Leads revision	Edits content as needed	Edits content as needed	Completes revision with primary author

Note. Author order may be adjusted depending on actual work performed. All decisions for changes should be led by the primary author and discussed with the full group.

^aCan be delegated to a, non-author assistant

We have used these grids to guide conversations about author roles and responsibilities in more than 10 projects and have found them extremely effective in this previously cumbersome process. Based on the positive feedback from authors and requests for use by other author teams, we felt dissemination of the grids would be helpful.

We have not undertaken a formal evaluation process, due to the lack of reliable and valid measures of ethical authorship; however, we have elicited input of colleagues who had used the grids. In addition, two authors presented the grids to different work-in-progress groups and a responsible conduct of research course for review by nurse and clinical scientists, whose valuable feedback was incorporated.

Grid Components and Use

These modifiable grids include key components of ethical authorship, link work effort with attribution, and encourage authors to plan for future data sharing consistent with NIH guidelines. The grids also enable attribution of facets of the work when corresponding with editors. When used early in and throughout the research or project process, these grids facilitate ethical authorship and provide transparency during review.

The authorship grids are organized from top to bottom in a rough chronological order of research and publication tasks. Table 2 is an example of a generic quantitative research study grid. Table 3 is for a qualitative research study based on the steps needed for a qualitative descriptive approach. Table 4 is a grid adapted for a literature synthesis, although not aligned with one approach or method. The quantitative and qualitative grids are divided into eight sections of rows: 1) responsibility, 2) coordination and communication, 3) participant protections, 4) design, 5) data, 6) analysis, 7) writing, and 8) final approvals and submission.

Table 3.

Sample Author Gridfor Qualitative Descriptive Research Using Content Analysis ^ab

	1st Author	2nd Author	3 rd Author (In this example, qualitative method expert)	Senior Author
Responsibility
Role	1st author takes the lead in the project/research, moving the article through the process	Adds expertise to the team; this may include data access, population knowledge, qualitative analysis expertise (Include specific expectations for each author)	Adds qualitative expertise to the team	The senior author usually brings a depth of experience to the project serving as a mentor
Final Responsibility for Content	Responsible for all content, rechecks all factual content	Responsible for all content within the article or can be customized based on author role	Responsible for qualitative method fidelity	Responsible for all content within the article
Coordination & Communication
Coordination	Sets schedule for manuscript completion, coordinates draft management c Establishes a folder for document storage on an online server c	Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming	Maintains draft clarity through consistent document naming	Sets meetings and establishes video conferencing link for all participants
	Responsible for ensuring authors meet criteria for authorship and rearranging the order of authors as needed by contributions, in conjunction with the entire author team
	Coordinates revision as needed with other authors
Communication	Communicates within 1 week to all e-mails (All) Returns drafts within 2-week time frame (All)
Meetings	Schedules all meetings, ideally 2-3 weeks in advancec Leads all meetings, providing an agenda one day in advance	Attends all meetings (or customized to set an expectation of which meetings the author is expected to attend)	Attends all meetings involving the qualitative method, coding or writing	Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Redirects other authors to maintain focus in meetings Attends all meetings
Participant Protections
IRB application	Leads writing of IRB application Updates key study personnel as needed Maintains IRB/CITI training	Maintains IRB/CITI training	Maintains IRB/CITI training	Contributes to the IRB application through writing and revision Maintains IRB/CITI training
Study Conduct	Conducts study consistent with the protocol and protections outlined in the IRB application (All)
Data Handling	Handles data consistent with NIH, HIPAA, and other pertinent protections as described in the IRB proposal and study protocol (All)
Design
Design	Designs study using current literature and sound research principles	Contributes to study design (customize to specify)	Contributes to study design as relevant to qualitative analysis.	Actively contributes to study design based on the current literature and sound research principles
Data
Data Acquisition	Acquires all data using procedures outlined in the study protocol and IRB proposal Contributes to study field notes to contextualize the study in place and time.	Acquires all data using procedures outlined in the study protocol and IRB proposal Contributes to study field notes to contextualize the study in place and time.	Acquires all data using procedures outlined in the study protocol and IRB proposal Contributes to study field notes to contextualize the study in place and time.	Contributes to data acquisition often through monetary or collegial support
Data Storage	Stores data in a central location that is compliant with NIH and HIPAA requirements as applicable Provides other authors with appropriate access to data	Uses established naming procedures for all study documents	Uses established Uses established naming procedures for all study documents	Uses established naming procedures for all study documents
Transcripts	Takes the lead in ensuring interviews are transcribed and verifying transcript accuracy	Verifies transcript accuracy for (number) of transcripts	Verifies transcript accuracy for (number) of transcripts	Assists with transcripts as needed
Data Ownership at Study Close	Retains a full dataset	Can retain a pdf of deidentified data for verification after publication	Retains a copy of the transcripts and codebook to be able to answer statistical queries	Retains a full dataset
Data Sharing with Other Researchers	Receives all contact from other researchers Provides deidentified data and/or field notes per NIH guidelines	-------	-------	Provides a deidentified dataset to other researchers per NIH guidelines if first author is unable
Analysis
Open Coding	Performs open coding as described in the methods (All)
Codebook	Creates and maintains codebook.	Uses codebook to ensure high quality coding	Uses codebook to ensure high quality coding	Uses codebook to ensure high quality coding
Final Coding	Performs final coding (All)
Member Checking	Contacts participants to ensure codes and results match their experiences Reconciles participant responses with codes and analysis	Reviews participant comments Provides input and revision as needed	Reviews participant comments Provides input and revision as needed.	Reviews participant comments Reconciles participant responses with codes and analysis
Writing
Introduction	Author of first draft	3 rd review	4 th review	2nd review
Results	1st author of selected codes or theme	1st author of selected codes or theme	1st author of selected codes or theme	1st author of selected codes or theme
	1st reviewer for all information	3rd reviewer for all information	4th reviewer for all information	2nd reviewer for all information
Tables/Figures	Creates tables and figures and coordinates completion and revision as needed	Contributes quotes or data for tables or figures Provides input as to the style and design of tables and figures	Contributes quotes or data for table Provides input as to the style and design of tables and figures	2nd review of table Contributes data for table Provides input as to the style and design of tables and figures
Discussion	2nd review	3 rd review	4th review	Author of first draft
Formatting	Formats document in journal’s style c	-------	-------	Reviews paper for journal style
References	Establishes shared database of references using reference software cbreak/>Adds references as needed for authors	Provides references to 1st author	Provides references to 1st author	Reviews paper to ensure references and text citations are in order
	Final Approvals and Submission
Final Document	Approves final document for submission (All)
Submission	Submits documentc and completes allpage proofs etc.	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms
Revision	Leads revision	Edits content as needed	Edits content as needed	Completes revision with primary author

Note. Author order may be adjusted depending on actual work performed. All decisions for changes should be led by the primary author and discussed with the full group. In this example, we present a qualitative descriptive approach that uses the steps in qualitative content analysis as presented by:

^aElo & Kyngas (2008) and

^bGraneheim & Lundman (2004).

^cCan be delegated to a non-author assistant

Table 4:

Sample Author Gridfor a Literature Synthesis Review

	1 st Author (Name here)	2nd Author (Name here)	3 rd Author (In this example, a medical librarian)	Senior / Anchor Author (Name Here)
Responsibility
Role	Takes the lead in the project/research, moving the article through the process	Adds expertise to the team; this may include skill in data or participant access, study design, methodology expertise, or writing ability (Include specific expectations for each author)	Contributes expertise or analytic competence to the team. In this case, skills related to source retrieval and assessment.	Contributes a depth of experience to the project, frequently serving as a mentor
Final Responsibility for Content	Responsible for all content, rechecks all factual content	Responsible for all content within the article	Responsible for literature search and retrieval methods and results	Responsible for all content within the article
Coordination & Communication
Coordination	Maintains document clarity through consistent naming (All)
	Sets schedule for manuscript completion, coordinates draft management a Establishes and maintains a folder for document storage on an online server a Responsible for ensuring authors meet criteria for authorship and rearranging the order of authors as needed by contributions, in conjunction with the entire author team Coordinates revision as needed with other authors			Sets meetings and establishes video conferencing link for all participants
Communication	Communicates within 1 week to all e-mails (All) Returns drafts within 2-week time frame (All)
Meetings	Schedules all meetings, ideally 2–3 weeks in advancea Leads all team meetings, sets and distributes an agenda for team meetings one day in advance Attends all meetings	Attends all team meetings	Attends all team meetings relevant to literature search and retrieval process and/or other content responsibilities	Coordinates with the 1st author to ensure meetings are well organized. Supports all authors to maintain focus in meetings Attends all meetings
Review Design and Literature Search
Objectives	Leads development of questions the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)	Provides input on review objectives	Provides input on review objectives	Provides input on review objectives
Eligibility Criteria	Leads development of inclusion and exclusion criteria	Provides input on inclusion and exclusion criteria	Provides input on inclusion and exclusion criteria	Provides input on inclusion and exclusion criteria
Design of Review	Determine of the type of literature synthesis e.g. integrative review, systematic review, meta-analysis. This may be revisited after the literature search as appropriate. (All)
Literature Search	Provides input on keywords and information sources, including databases	Provides input on Keywords and information sources, including databases	Identifies keywords and information sources, including databases, for literature search Conduts electronic literature search and maintains adequate documentation to repeat search Acquires sources identified in literature search	Provides input on keywords and information sources, including databases
Sources for the Review
Document Naming	Uses the established naming procedure of Topic_ Author_Year for all sources (All)
Storage of Sources	Sets up system for source storage and adds sourcesa	Provides st sources to 1 author or places within storage location	Provides st sources to 1st author or places within storage location	Provides st sources to 1st author or places within storage location
	Data Evaluation and Synthesis
Study Selection	Screens abstracts and full publications to assess eligibility Rechecks records of excluded studies and study selection flow diagram	Screens abstracts and full publications to assess eligibility	Screens abstracts and full publications to assess eligibility Maintains records of excluded studies, including rationale for exclusion, and creates study selection flow diagram	Screens abstracts and full publications to assess eligibility
Data Collection	Leads development of data extraction form, including data item and summary measure selection Extracts data from included studies Checks extracted data for accuracy, completeness, and consistency	Provides input on data extraction form Extracts data from included studies	Provides input on data extraction form Extracts data from included studies	Provides input on data extraction form Extracts data from included studies
Risk of Bias Assessment	Leads selection of risk of bias assessment methodology Assesses included studies for risk of bias	Provides input on risk of bias assessment methodology Assesses included studies forrisk of bias	Provides input on risk of bias assessment methodology Assesses included studies forrisk of bias	Provides input on risk of bias assessment methodology Assesses included studies for risk of bias Reconciles discrepancies in risk of bias assessment
Synthesis of Results	Combines results of studies in assigned subsection(s) (All)
		Writing
Abstract	Author of first draft	3 rd review	4 th review	2nd review
Introduction	Author of first draft	3 rd review	-------	2nd review
Methods	1st author of data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and literature synthesis subsections 2nd review of other subsections	4th review	1st author of literature search and retrieval process subsections 2nd review of other subsections	3 rd review
Results	1st author of (specify completed analysis) subsections 2nd review of all other results subsections	1st author of (specify completed analysis) subsections	1st author of literature search results subsection 1st author of (specify completed analysis) subsections, if applicable	1st author of (specify completed analysis) subsections 3 rd review of other subsections
Tables and Figures	Creates basic tables, coordinates completion, and contributes data	Contributes data for tables	Contributes data for tables Rechecks accuracy of numbers	2nd review of tables Contributes data for table
Discussion	Author of first draft	3 rd review	-------	2nd review
Formatting	Formats document in journal’s style a	-------	-------	Review of journal’s stylea
References	Establishes shared database of citations using citation softwarea Adds references as needed for authorsa	Provides references to 1st author	Adds literature search results to shared database Provides references to 1st author	Reviewer to ensure references and text citations are in order
Final Approvals and Submission
Final Document	Approves final document for submission and revisions			(All)
Submission	Submits manuscript and revisions, and completes all page proofs	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms	Completes copyright forms
Revision	Leads revision	Edits content as needed	Edits content as needed	Completes revision with primary author

Note. This grid is based on a systematic review, but can be adapted for any form of literature review. Author order may be adjusted depending on actual work performed. All decisions for changes should be led by the primary author and discussed with the full group.

^aCan be delegated to a non-author assistant

The literature synthesis grid has different sections to reflect the literature synthesis process. For example, the grid places less emphasis on participant protections, as the data have been published. Sections include: 1) responsibility, 2) coordination and communication, 3) review design and literature search, 4) sources for review, 5) data evaluation and synthesis, 6) writing, and 7) final approvals.

The roles, responsibilities, and tasks detailed in the rows are drawn from the ICJME authorship criteria (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015), Good Clinical Practice principles of the International Conference on Harmonisation (International Conference on Harmonisation, 1996), and NIH data sharing policies (National Institutes of Health, 2016). All ICJME authorship criteria are included to ensure authors are aware of expectations from the onset of a project and to support them in appreciating and then meeting requirements specific to their role. If an author has limited expertise, the team’s grid can denote responsibilities to assist in later authentication. All responsibilities within the grids can be modified to reflect the agreed upon expectations for each author role.

Each grid is consistent with relevant common, international reporting guidelines: CONSORT (Schulz, Altman, & Moher, 2010) and STROBE (Vandenbroucke et al., 2007) for quantitative research, SRQR (O’Brien, Harris, Beckman, Reed, & Cook, 2014) for qualitative research, and PRISMA (Moher, Altman, Liberati, & Tetzlaff, 2011) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Thus, each grid prompts authors to meet all common requirements for that type of work.

While the rows provide a guide to prompt authors to include all steps in their planning processes, it is impossible to create one grid that comprehensively addresses all components of each method or address every conceivable team-science need. As well, there are multiple methods for approaching qualitative (e.g. grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology) and quantitative research (e.g. randomized trials, observational studies) and literature synthesis (e.g. meta-analysis, systematic review), each with discrete steps. For these reasons, the contents of each grid row and the number of steps in analysis are considered a framework that author teams can customize to fit the exact approach or method employed for a specific team project. The citation for or a link to the methods document(s) can be placed at the bottom of the grid for quick reference.

The quantitative and literature synthesis grids we present are generic and nonspecific to any particular approach or method. Our qualitative grid was designed to meet the needs of a qualitative descriptive study and includes citation information for user clarity. Within the quantitative and qualitative research grids, we also include rows detailing participant protections, such as institutional review board (IRB) approval and data storage. These warrant assignment of tasks and discussion of safe data handling, especially for multi-institution collaborations as regulations may vary, and identifiable data must be shared securely.

The quantitative and qualitative grids encourage author teams to plan for short and long-term data management. The NIH requires data sharing for projects receiving >$500,000 in federal funds (National Institutes of Health, 2016). Development of a project-specific data sharing policy that is consistent with local policies and IRB guidelines can assist in meeting NIH expectations after active data collection is concluded (Bennett et al., 2010; Bierer et al., 2017).

Author responsibilities are to be delineated in each column. In Table 2, we present an author grid example including four authors with a statistician as the third author. In Table 4, one author is a medical librarian with specific expertise for the project. We have included sample text in each cell to help the reader in imagining options for delineating each author’s responsibilities. Each author team should carefully evaluate the grid template and adapt cell content to match both project needs and authorship team expectations, customizing the position and workload of each author to meet specific team needs. After details within the grid are customized, the grid is used to document workload and timeline expectations for each author.

Consistent with nearly all publication guides, the first author leads the team in our examples and performs a larger share of work than the other authors. In our template grid, we have placed the senior author last, but roles can be adjusted to be congruent with academic community or journal standards. While in our examples the first author is also the corresponding author, any author can be the corresponding author.

As a project progresses, input and contributions may shift, necessitating rearrangement of author order. We include a subscript on the grids noting that author order may be adjusted to be consistent with work performed, to prevent the expectation that byline position is unalterable. The primary author and the full authorship team can use the grid to reinforce the agreed-on workload-by-line position congruence. Because late adjustments in authorship are controversial (Albert & Wager, 2003), changes should be done in consultation with the entire team and linked closely with evidence of work performed.

Effectiveness of Grids

The grids have been used to organize author teams for 10 manuscripts at four universities and are used to guide students in a graduate-level writing class. For example, the quantitative grid was created to facilitate planning for a team of authors at three US institutions who had not previously published together (citation blinded-author please provide on proofs). At the beginning of the project, the primary author created a draft authorship grid to facilitate open discussion of workload, communication, timeliness, and author order. All authors met synchronously for one meeting to discuss and define author expectations using the grid and assign sections of the manuscript. The grid was then circulated to the entire author team via email for approval. The authors were able to work asynchronously with the first author coordinating verification of information and editing. Following initial peer review, the grid was useful to the first author in recalling which author originally wrote the text sections needing revision. Clear expectations linked with byline attribution improved collaboration and assisted the team in producing a timely and accurate submission.

Following this initial use, the grids have been used in projects with other colleagues. Since this time, we have received regular requests for copies of the grids or for educational lectures on ethical authorship. The grids have also been helpful for instruction: an author used the quantitative grid with a graduate student to stress how the ICJME criteria needed to be met by all authors. The grid provided structured guidance to assist the student in learning the steps of ethical, collaborative publication and was useful in shaping the new author’s approach to the document and team writing.

In an interprofessional team of three authors including the primary author of this article, the grid was used to outline expectations prior to project start, with special attention to author order as the individuals were from different disciplines and institutions. Once the structure of the study was in place and the IRB application approved, author team meetings stopped for five months while data were collected. When the team reassembled, the grid was used to refresh everyone’s memory of the agreed effort allocation for analysis and writing, speeding team reformation and functioning.

Early use of an authorship grid was also beneficial in dealing with authorship problems. In another project, the primary author used the quantitative grid to elucidate co-authorship expectations. However, early in the project, one author consistently did not meet the articulated communication timeframe, delaying project progress. The delinquent author was reminded of the agreed-on expectations and was re-sent a copy of the approved grid. When unable to meet delineated goals a second time, the individual was released from the project by the author team. In this case, establishment of clear expectations using the grid facilitated removal of a co-author who was impeding manuscript progress.

Limitations

While the grids have been used at a variety of institutions by a diversity of research and writing teams, they have not been systematically studied. We have found the grids to be a collegial prompt for difficult conversations, but in themselves, the grids cannot stop unethical behaviors. In addition, these grids are not a ‘one-size fits all’ method for assigning author responsibilities; each project team must adjust the grid to reflect their methods, authors, and preferred roles within the work. While customization limits our ability to conduct conclusive research regarding the grids’ effect on ethical authorship practices, any strategy that facilitates early and effective team-science communication as well as ethical authorship is positive, especially if it improves the experience of students and first-time authors.

Discussion

While few writers believe their co-authors will fail to meet deadlines or behave unethically, use of an authorship grid encourages agreement on expectations and standards for progress, ethics, and communication at the outset. Author grids can prompt ethical and effective collaboration during research, publication, and data sharing. These grids incorporate the recommendations of national and international organizations as well as required components of research checklists and guidelines. As collaborative teams increase in size (Moher, 2014; Tilak et al., 2015), team science becomes more widespread (Bennett et al., 2010), and tenure and grant funding becomes increasingly limited, it is important to articulate expectations to avoid potentially career-damaging conflict and decrease unethical authorship practices.

We offer these grids for use with quantitative research, qualitative research, and literature review manuscripts for modification to meet individual project needs. Ideally, a grid will be used early in the research or project planning process and revisited if author contributions shift. The grid can then be submitted with the manuscript and published as a public attribution of author contributions (Bozeman & Youtie, 2016; Moher, 2014).

Establishing the link between authorship and input improves scientific rigor and upholds ethical standards. While formal research is needed on how the proposed grids affect collaboration and adherence to ethical publication guidelines, these tools can be easily implemented and offer a practical solution to improve author communication and increase transparency surrounding authorship and work performed.