Criteria for Authorship in Papers

How  authorship is assigned in the group?

A substantial creative contribution in one or more of the following phases of research is sufficient in my lab to warrant inclusion as an author of the paper reporting the theoretical work, or simulations or calculations experiment(s).

A lesser creative contribution warrants an acknowledgement in the footnote of the paper (and we will let the individual know that he/she will be acknowledge in a paper before listing them). We will determine whether someone deserves either of these credits, and determine the ordering of authors, by counting up each person's contribution to each phase. As noted below, we assign a larger weight to the first and last phases, and to any other phase that requires special expertise or creativity (e.g., data analysis, in some cases).

In my lab, we consider 6 criteria, and weight them as follows; often the "points" at each stage are divided among several people. If a person *contributes creatively* at any of these phases, that is enough to qualify him or her for an acknowledgment or as a co-author, depending on the magnitude of the contribution. Moreover, the "replaceability criterion" leads us to ask whether one person's contributions could just as easily have been made by others; if not (i.e., if the person would have been difficult to replace), that contribution is weighted more highly.

The point totals of each phase should be agreed upon in advance; some projects, for example, use standard designs (e.g., "Stroop") or analyses (e.g., correlations), in which case the number of points for that phase should be reduced. The following are "default" point values for a typical research paper, with a total of 1000. The total points for each phase is divided among authors in proportion to their contribution in that phase of the project. In my lab, if someone contributed more than 0 but less than 15% of the total number of points, they are acknowledged in the footnote. If they contributed at least 15%, they are an author, and the ordering of authorship is determined by the relative number of points.

1. The idea (250 points): Without the idea, nothing else happens. If the idea grew out of a discussion, all who contributed get "credit"--but perhaps not equally so, if one or more people were primarily responsible for the insights leading to the best way to pose the question to be answered by the research and the logic of the design. Typically the person doing and generating the ideas is the supervisor, so some of the points may go to the supervisor.

2. The design (100 points): The details of the design include counterbalancing issues, control conditions, whether a within-subjects or between-subjects design is used, and so on. A bad design later will render the results useless, so this is a critical step. Typically the person doing de design is the supervisor, so some of the points may go to the supervisor.

3. The implementation (100 points): Someone must implement the design into actual materials, devise instructions, and so on. To the extent this is simple boilerplate (a variation on well-developed methods using available materials), this step may be given much less weight (perhaps only 5 points). Typically the person doing the implementation is supervised closely, so some of the points may go to the supervisor.

4. Conducting the theoretical/numerical experiments (100 points): The person who tests computer codes *can* earn up to 100 points, but may earn merely 5 points if all they do is mindlessly test the written codes. Authorship is awarded only to those who contribute substantially and creatively to a project; if someone is receiving class credit or payment and all they do is follow instructions and test subjects, this is worthy of an acknowledgment in the paper, but not authorship. On the other hand, if they notice what codes are actually doing and make constructive suggestions for how to improve the theoretical/numerical experiment, this qualifies them to be included as an author. Specifically, if one notices problems in the method or procedure (and re-program or recompile a new version), and makes constructive suggestions about how to repair them, observes interesting hints about what's really going on in the debriefings, and so on, this counts as a substantial creative contribution at this stage. Typically the person doing the theoretical/numerical experiments are several authors (including the supervisor) so the points are distributed accordingly.

5. Data analysis (200 points): Simply running the data through an program is not enough to earn authorship at this phase. However, devising some new way to look at the data (e.g., as difference scores or ratios of some kind), or otherwise contributing a novel insight into the best way to reveal the underlying patterns in the data, may be sufficient. Particularly labor-intensive or creative data analysis, such as involved in analyzing wave functions and other data intensive or code intensive codes, can "earn" more points. Depending on the project, the maximum of 200 points may or may not be allocated. Typically the person doing the theoretical/numerical experiments are several authors (including the supervisor) so the points are distributed accordingly.

6. Writing (300 points). Nothing happens if the results are not reported. Writing is usually shared by several people. Credit is allocated primarily to the one who shapes the conceptual content, although a good and insightful literature review also counts heavily (however, suggesting papers to read does not count as points). If someone writes a first draft that is not used at all, this does not contribute towards points: good intentions are not enough; the question is who has contributed how much to the final product. Similarly, the sheer amount of time one has spent on the project is not relevant; competent people who work more efficiently should not be penalized. Typically the person doing the writing, drafts, and revisions is the supervisor or is supervised closely, so some of the points may go to the supervisor.

Following the guidelines above, the following does not count towards any points in authorship:

• • - Being around a meeting about this project or research paper

  • (otherwise office neighbors would be in everyone's paper)

  • - Modify the text or word-smiting paragraphs of a written manuscript with results already given

  • (otherwise secretaries/editors/referees would be in everyone's paper)

  • - Modify the figures to make it look better or with higher resolution

  • (otherwise image editors would be in everyone's paper)

  • - Repeat previous results or calculations as part of training

  • (otherwise by checking past papers, we should all be in their papers)

  • - Recommend a paper or related reading to further understand a concept

  • (googling something and recommend it for read does not count, otherwise everyone is social media should be in everyone's papers.)

If there is a dispute, authors who cannot provide raw data will not be co-authors. Data management is step one.

The key to fair allocation of authorship, and equitable ordering, is to have criteria that are known to all and that all can discuss. It is best to walk through each of these criteria at the outset of the project. In addition, in my lab each contributor sends his or her own assessment of their contribution after the project is relatively complete but *before* the paper is written. If someone is near the total required to be an author but not quite there, they are offered the opportunity to take a larger role in the writing or data analysis process—thereby allowing him or her to accrue more points (however, if this opportunity is not taken the first time, there will not be a second chance). The main message is to give each other constant updates on the different projects and be organized about it, this way your contribution is stated throughout. 

References:

1.     Authorship Criteria (Stephen M. Kosslyn)

2. https://books.google.com/books/about/Scientific_Authorship_2003 

3. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in 

4. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5961/12.full

5. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/pages/instructions-for-authors (see end)

This is a draft that will updated, some new models that have proposed are below:
ACS: https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf
AMS: https://www.ams.org/about-us/governance/policy-statements/sec-ethics

ACM: https://www.acm.org/publications/policies

IEEE: https://pspb.ieee.org/images/files/PSPB/opsmanual.pdf

SFN: https://www.sfn.org/membership 

Guidelines for Creating a "Publishing Quality" Paper in Our Group

In general, papers are written using Overleaf/LaTeX, with supplementary files stored in Dropbox. Please follow these essential steps to ensure high-quality output:

Key Points for Paper Preparation:

• Ensure most figures, if not all, are in vector format for clarity and scalability. [See the guide]

• Follow the manual for sharing code on GitHub to ensure reproducibility. [See the guide]

• When preparing files for ArXiv, refer to the detailed instructions provided: [pptx link] [Tutorial in video].
  The main differences of preparing submissions for ArXiV and Journal are listed below:

1. ArXiV submission requires all the files (manuscript, figures and bibliography) must be in the same folder.

2. ArXiV submission requires the main content and supporting information must be combined into the a single LaTeX file.

By following these guidelines, you’ll help ensure that our submissions meets the standards for both preprints and journal publications. 

How to check if you have not accidentally missing a citation?

Use MSU Turnitin (for checking the similarity index) to be aware of the percentage match in your paper from different sources and reduce the percentage to its recommended level before submission of your Manuscript to a journal. Please follow the link for the use of Turnitin to guide you. 

Turnitin Manual: https://www.dropbox.com/s/msyxba0l580798b/Turnitin_Manual.pdf?dl=0 

Turnitin’s similarity checking guides students/instructors/individuals about the appropriate use of sources, paraphrasing, over-quoting, and citing. It offers students the ability to "opt out" of the database and protect us from text imitation. Papers submitted to Turnitin may be compared against billions of internet documents, archived internet data that is no longer available on the live web, a local database of previously submitted papers, and subscription database of periodicals, journals, and publications. The users can view the Originality Reports for their own submissions on Turnitin and Similarity Report (comprised of lists of all the matching sources, including the percentage of text that matches and a link to the online content). It will guide you to the matching content percentage: A lower percentage rating indicates that the content is likely original and has not been copied; a higher percentage rating indicates the content is likely not original and has been copied from another source. Please follow the Turnitin Manual to get an idea of the acceptable percentage.

How to prepare the files for ArXiV/ChemRxiV or Journals?

You can follow this link

Where to publish Open Access that is covered by MSU libraries?

You can select any journal of APS, ACS, Nature Publishing group, AAAS or other publisher.

However, if you want the paper we are working on to be open source, you can check these options that are available through MSU:

https://lib.msu.edu/about/collections/scholcomm/support/

A new addition to this list is all ACS Journals!!! so we can publish in any of them.

• American Chemical Society (ACS). MSU Corresponding authors can publish open access for no cost to them ... thanks to a Read and Publish agreement through the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services for 2024-2026.

"Pretty much all ACS journals are included except a few odd ones that are new and listed on the link https://acsopenscience.org/customers/mcls/  that seem to have waivers anyway. It’s an agreement for unlimited MSU corresponding author publishing during 2024-2026, so there’s no chance of running out of funds. "

Dear all,

If you want the paper we are working on to be open source, you can check these options that are available through MSU:

https://lib.msu.edu/about/collections/scholcomm/support/

• Royal Society Publishing. MSU Libraries has an agreement with the Royal Society for 2023 to cover open access publishing by MSU corresponding authors for all article types in all their journals.

Philosophical Transactions A: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsta

Proceedings of the Royal Society A: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rspa

• Wiley: The Big Ten Academic Alliance has a Read & Publish agreement with Wiley to cover unlimited open access publishing in Wiley hybrid and Wiley or Hindawi gold open access journals for MSU corresponding authors for 2023-2025.

Wiley's hybrid journals included:

Angewandte Chemie International Edition

Advanced Theory and Simulations

Advanced Materials

Advanced Energy Materials

Annalen der Physik: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/15213889

• The MSU Libraries supports "Subscribe to Open" journal projects from several publishers :  Annual Reviews

Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics: https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/conmatphys

Annual Review of Physical Chemistry: https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/physchem

Annual Review of Materials Research: https://www.annualreviews.org/journal/matsci

• The MSU Libraries supports "Subscribe to Open" journal projects from several publishers :  American Institute of Physics' Journal of Applied Physics (JAP) and Physics of Plasmas,

Journal of Applied Physics: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap

• IOP (Institute of Physics). The Big Ten Academic Alliance has signed a Read and Publish agreement to cover unlimited open access publishing by MSU corresponding authors for eligible IOP journals (not including AAS) for 2023-2025.

2D Materials: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2053-1583

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0953-8984

Journal of Physics - Applied Physics: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0022-3727

Nanotechnology: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0957-4484

Semiconductor Science and Technology: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0268-1242

Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0965-0393

Quantum Science and Technology: https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/2058-9565

• Royal Society of Chemistry. MSU Libraries has an agreement with RSC for 2024-2026 (including articles submitted Oct-Dec 2023) for unlimited open access publishing of all articles types for MSU corresponding authors in both hybrid and gold OA journals.

With this agreement, some journal that we can try to publish are:

Energy & Environmental Science: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/energy-environmental-science/

Journal of Materials Chemistry A: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/journal-of-materials-chemistry-a/

Chemical Science: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/chemical-science/

Nanoscale: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/nanoscale/

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/pccp/

Sustainable Energy & Fuels: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/sustainable-energy-fuels/

Chem Soc Rev: https://www.rsc.org/journals-books-databases/about-journals/chem-soc-rev/

or others.

• Cambridge University Press. MSU corresponding authors may publish research articles open access in over 370 Cambridge University Press (CUP) gold and hybrid journals during 2021-2023 for no cost to them. Through the Midwest Collaborative for Library Services consortium, the MSU Libraries has signed a three-year "transformative" read-and-publish agreement with CUP to pay for those fees out of library funds.

MRS Bulletin: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-bulletin

MRS Advances: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-advances

MRS Communications: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-communications

MRS Energy & Sustainability : https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-energy-and-sustainability

I have put this in the Wiki, but you can update it as you discover more journals we might be able to do open access through MSU:

https://sites.google.com/view/mendozagroup/codestutorials/advice/criteria-for-authorship-in-papers#h.skpq9rzfimad

(edited)

lib.msu.edu

MSU Support for Open Access Publishing | MSU Libraries

How does MSU support open access publishing?In March, 2022, the MSU University Council passed a resolution: Encouragement of openly accessible scholarship.For information on specific subject areas, contact your subject librarian.For open data deposit, consult Digital Scholarship Services to help you plan for the creation of data sets as a research output and ideas