Begin with contributions rather than positions
Imagine a fictional student expects authorship for collecting data while a supervisor expects additional analysis and manuscript work. If neither expectation is discussed, both may discover the mismatch late.
ICMJE sets out authorship criteria used by many biomedical journals. NISO's CRediT taxonomy describes different contributions. These serve different purposes: documenting a role does not automatically determine whether a journal's authorship criteria are met.
A conversation can cover four questions
- What work is expected from each person?
- Which authorship standard will the project use?
- How will author order be decided in this field and team?
- When will contributions and expectations be reviewed again?
The answers can be recorded in a brief shared note. That note supports clarity; it does not make future contributions impossible to reassess.
When the project changes
Someone may take on substantial new work, leave the project, or be unable to complete an expected task. Revisiting the discussion can distinguish a changed contribution from a broken promise. A provisional author list should not be treated as irrevocable regardless of the work performed.
Conversely, changing expectations near submission without explanation can create a serious fairness concern.
If the conversation feels difficult
A student may have less power than other team members. Program leadership, an ombuds office, or a research-integrity resource may help clarify applicable processes. Confidentiality and formal reporting roles differ, so it is useful to understand the office's function before sharing sensitive details.
The purpose is not to make every collaboration adversarial. It is to give credit, responsibility, and expectations enough definition that people do not have to infer them from seniority or silence.
