[c]

There are varying practices in terms of recognition of authorship, with the research leader or lead author named first and the rest in order of amount of contribution to the project. This may not be by the amount written but by the work on, or organisation of, the project. Alternatively, all names may be listed alphabetically.

• How many published outputs, how will they be authored, how authorship and contribution to the project, particularly of research assistants and more junior staff, should be recognised should be agreed early in the project. If this is not done, it can be embarrassing to discuss and problematic to agree which authors will be recognised, and for what percentage contribution, at a later stage
• Those working on the project but not contributing to writing the publication should be acknowledged
• Contribution to the project may be an estimate of percentage time spent, or by actual hours logged
• Where names are listed alphabetically, and author’s surname being late in the alphabet can be considered an issue
• Sole authorship can be seen as equivalent to lead authorship. The RAE is seen to influence the increasing importance of multidisciplinary research by teams, across and between institutions – this is reflected in the output and dissemination
• Models of disseminations can be an issue, for example in the weight given to books versus articles, websites versus newsletters
• Contribution to authorship of publications can be a question at interviews relating to promotion in some institutions