As a researcher, you are expected to abide by the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. [1] Among other responsibilities set out in the Code, researchers are expected to “comply with relevant legislation, policies and guidelines”. Alongside the Code, universities have policies to ensure the responsible conduct of research. Further, academic disciplines often have different considerations that must be acknowledged, such as methodological approaches, perspectives, ethical codes [2] and evaluation practices. [3]

Why is it relevant?

Ethical and regulatory compliance is integral to good research and practice. Research integrity enables confidence in data collection, outputs and recommendations, [4] alongside the fair and dignified treatment of research subjects. [5] Complying with discipline-specific and legal requirements also minimises the risks of physical or mental harm to research subjects and the research team, as well as managing potential risks to associated organisations’ reputations. [6]

Practical steps

Key concepts to understand:

• Research integrity: conduct research honestly, ethically and rigorously. [1]
• Responsible data management: retain accurate, clear, secure and complete records of all data and materials used in research. [1]
• Authorship and publication practices: appropriately credit those who have made significant contributions to research and associated outputs. [7]
• Supervision and mentoring: supervisors have responsibilities towards those under their guidance, particularly to provide support, work cooperatively and ensure that all relevant training is completed. [8]
• Research misconduct accusations: if you are accused of breaching the Code, the investigating institution must abide by the principles laid out in Section 3 [9], allowing the accused to be heard, decisions to be made based on evidence and without bias.

Guidelines to consult:

• Research ethics for human and animal research: your research must go through an ethics review process aligned with the subject and methods; different standards are required for ethics exemptions, human and animal research (see the “Research Ethics” factsheet).
• Laboratory regulations regarding biosafety and chemical / radiation material: check the regulations of the laboratories you will be working in to ensure that you comply and understand what safety precautions must be taken (see the “Health and Safety” factsheet).
• Indigenous Research Governance: research involving Indigenous participants or knowledge requires consideration and understanding to ensure culturally appropriate methods and actions (see the factsheets on “Co-design with Indigenous Communities” and “Engage with Indigenous Communities”).
• Funding and Grant Compliance: funding and grants often come with specific guidelines as to how research must be conducted and managed, and how funds can be spent. [10]
• Disciplinary and Professional standards: You must consider and comply with standards relevant to your discipline and profession such as methodological approaches, laboratory protocols, authorship conventions, and peer-review ethics.

Why is it relevant?

Authorship order is one of the main ways scientific credit is distributed and interpreted. Positions such as first, last, and corresponding author are often used to infer contribution, leadership, responsibility, and seniority. As a result, authorship order can influence hiring, promotion, funding opportunities, professional visibility, and career progression. 

Because particular authorship positions have acquired significant value, discussions about authorship order are often sensitive and contested. At the same time, the meaning attached to these positions is not universal. Different disciplines rely on different conventions, and collaborators may hold different expectations about who should occupy particular positions and what those positions represent. When these assumptions remain implicit, authorship order can become a source of misunderstanding, disagreement, or tension within research teams. 

Hidden Assumptions

Authorship order is often treated as a straightforward representation of contribution. This assumes that different forms of work can be compared, arranged in a single sequence, and interpreted consistently by collaborators, readers, and evaluators. 

In practice, these assumptions do not always hold. Different disciplines use different conventions, contributions may be difficult to compare directly, and the same authorship order may be understood in different ways. 

Practical Steps

Authorship order is often treated as the outcome of a project. However, teams may benefit from discussing how authorship order will be determined. Making expectations, criteria, and decision-making processes explicit can help reduce misunderstandings and support more transparent discussions about recognition and credit. 

Questions that may be useful to discuss include: 

• What authorship conventions are relevant to this project?
• Which contributions are most important for this particular output?
• How will different forms of work be recognised and compared?
• How will changes in contribution be reflected if the project evolves?
• Who will participate in authorship order discussions?
• How will disagreements be addressed?

Because authorship order distributes recognition and opportunity, all contributors share responsibility for ensuring that the process is understood and open to discussion. 

Case Study

The CLEAR Lab, led by Max Liboiron, developed an “Equity in Author Order” protocol to support discussions about authorship order. Rather than beginning with individual authors, the process starts by identifying the forms of labour that made the project possible and discussing which contributions were most central to the work. The team then maps contributors to these forms of labour and collectively discusses how authorship order should be established. The protocol also encourages researchers to reflect on how different forms of work are recognised and how existing inequalities may shape authorship decisions.