The manuscript is almost ready when someone asks about author order. Everyone agrees their contribution mattered. They don't agree on what the order was supposed to mean.
The handbook recommends discussing authorship early. That conversation needs the conventions and criteria relevant to your field and intended outlet, rather than a universal story about who always goes first or last.
Separate eligibility from order
First examine the applicable authorship criteria and responsibilities. Then discuss how the author list will be arranged. A person's seniority, relationship to the team, or job title doesn't by itself explain whether they meet the relevant requirements.
Where acknowledgement is appropriate instead, handle that through the required permissions and process.
Describe the actual contributions
List the work involved: developing the question, designing the study, obtaining or preparing information, analyzing, interpreting, writing, and other substantive tasks. Use the contribution categories the outlet requires where applicable.
Be clear about who did what. Order alone may not communicate those details to readers.
Check the meaning you're assigning to position
Fields and teams use different conventions. Explain the proposed approach and confirm that everyone understands it. Don't assume a student, a new collaborator, or someone from another discipline shares your interpretation.
Clarify the corresponding author's role separately using the journal's requirements. That role shouldn't be confused with a universal measure of the largest contribution.
Revisit the plan as the work changes
An initial agreement should reflect the contributions expected at the time. If responsibilities change substantially, discuss the effect before submission. Keep a clear record of the updated understanding.
Waiting until the final upload can make a legitimate question feel like an emergency.
Resolve disagreements through the appropriate route
Use relevant institutional, disciplinary, or publication processes when the team can't reach agreement. Don't quietly change the list or submit on an assumption that silence means consent.
Confirm the author information, required approvals, and contribution statements as part of the final submission check.
At the next project meeting, put authorship on the agenda alongside the research tasks. Bring the relevant criteria and a draft contribution list. A direct conversation now gives everyone a clearer basis for the work and credit that follow.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 118-120.
