Article Category: Observation and Ideation

Making Authorship Decisions

Decisions about authorship are rarely straightforward. They determine how recognition, responsibility, and accountability are distributed across a research team and can have significant implications for careers and professional reputation. Contributors may hold different expectations about what should be recognised, how contributions should be valued, and how credit should be allocated. For this reason, discussions about authorship benefit from taking place throughout the research process rather than only at the point of publication. 

Discussions about authorship often focus on contributions, authorship order, and recognition. However, teams may also benefit from discussing how authorship decisions themselves will be made. In some projects, decisions emerge through collective discussion; in others, specific responsibilities may be delegated to particular team members. Rather than assuming a process, teams can make decision-making procedures explicit from the outset and revisit them as projects evolve. 

Ongoing discussions reduce misunderstandings and prevent last-minute conflicts.

Why is it relevant?

Early discussions about authorship can help make a sensitive topic part of everyday project conversations. They provide an opportunity to clarify expectations, discuss how contributions may be recognised, and establish how authorship decisions will be approached as the project develops. Authorship expectations do not disappear when they are left unspoken; they are often replaced by assumptions about contribution, recognition, and responsibility. Discussing these issues early helps make those assumptions visible and open to discussion. 

These conversations may also be shaped by differences in seniority, disciplinary background, and institutional position. For further discussion of these issues, see the companion Fact Sheet: Power and Authorship. 

Practical Steps

Questions that may be useful to revisit throughout a project include: 

  • Who is currently contributing to the project, and in what ways?
  • Does our current list of potential authors still reflect the contributions being made?
  • Have contributions changed in ways that may affect authorship or authorship order?
  • Are team members comfortable with how authorship is currently being discussed and understood?
  • Are there upcoming publications, patents, or other outputs that require authorship discussions?
  • Have any concerns, uncertainties, or differing expectations emerged that should be discussed?
  • Does the team agree on how authorship decisions will be approached if contributions continue to evolve?
Common pitfalls 
  • Treating authorship as a discussion that only needs to happen at the end of a project.
  • Assuming contributors share the same expectations about recognition, responsibility, and authorship.
  • Allowing authorship decisions to develop through assumptions rather than discussion.
  • Overlooking less visible forms of contribution.
  • Avoiding conversations when expectations, roles, or contributions change.
  • Assuming that all contributors want the same level or type of authorship recognition.
Key message

Authorship is not simply a technical decision made at the end of a project. It is one of the primary ways research contributions, recognition, responsibility, and accountability become associated with particular individuals. Keeping authorship discussions visible throughout a project can help teams navigate changing contributions, differing expectations, and future decisions about recognition and responsibility. 

Case Study

A paper published in Nature Communications was later retracted following a dispute among the listed authors. According to reports, several co-authors stated that they had not been informed of the manuscript submission and had not agreed to be included as authors. The case highlights that authorship involves more than recognising contributions. It also requires communication, agreement, responsibility, and accountability for the work being published. 

Engage with Indigenous Communities

Engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is a core component of responsible and ethical science, particularly in interdisciplinary and emerging fields where research intersects with people, systems, data, Country and future societal impacts. It involves building respectful, transparent, and reciprocal relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, recognising them as knowledge holders and rights-holders, with authority over their cultures, knowledge systems, and data, not merely stakeholders. [1] 

For example, in the field of quantum biotechnology, engagement is especially important because quantum-enabled technologies introduce new forms of visibility, measurement, and intervention in living systems, often at unprecedented resolution and scale. Ethical engagement ensures that rapidly advancing technological capability is matched with foresight, cultural respect, and shared benefit, supporting innovation that is scientifically robust, socially legitimate, and sustainable. 

Why is it relevant?

Engaging respectfully with Indigenous communities is essential and matters because: 

  • Indigenous perspectives contribute to more holistic understandings of sustainability, risk, and benefit. [1]
  • Indigenous peoples have rights to self-determination and control over knowledges and data relating to their peoples, lands, seas, and waterways (Country), and cultures as recognised nationally and internationally. [2] 
  • Engaging early helps identify values, risks, and implications before technologies become locked-in through infrastructure, data platforms, or commercial pathways. 
  • Technologies that enable unprecedented sensing, data capture, and biological interrogation can have long-term, cumulative impacts that are difficult to predict or reverse. 

Practical Steps

Engagement should be proportionate, context – specific and embedded early. Practical steps include:  

  1. Assess relevance early. Consider whether your research involves biological materials, environmental sensing, sensitive data, or potential impacts on Country and communities 
  2. Engage appropriate communities. Indigenous communities are diverse. Seek guidance from Traditional Owners, Elders or relevant local organisations rather than assuming a single approach. 
  3. Respect Indigenous data and knowledge sovereignty. Indigenous knowledge is not open data. Data ownership, access, use, re-use, and benefit-sharing should reflect Indigenous governance principles. 
  4. Avoid extractive research practices. Where research affects communities, move beyond one-way consultation toward shared decision-making or culturally informed governance. 
  5. Be transparent about uncertainty. Clearly explain knowns, unknowns, and potential future implications associated with emerging quantum technologies. 
  6. Plan for reciprocity and continuity. Ethical engagement includes tangible community benefits and relationships that extend beyond a single project or funding cycle. 

Case Study

Work on Jawoyn Country in southern Kakadu National Park demonstrates representative best practice for emerging technologies, where CSIRO researchers co-designed the ethical introduction of advanced sensing tools with Traditional Owners and Indigenous Rangers, embedding Indigenous leadership in field protocols and data governance. [3] [4] This approach provides a practical model for future technologies such as quantum biosensing, where early engagement supports ethical responsibility, trustworthy data interpretation, and socially legitimate innovation. [5]