Co-authorship
On this page you will find an overview of guidelines, good practices and advice for planning co-authorship in international knowledge cooperation.
Recently edited : 1. December 2025Why is planning co-authorship important?
Authorship norms apply whether you co-publish with colleagues in Norway or with colleagues in other countries. However, it is particularly important to focus on co-authorship in research collaborations involving international relations. Partners from different countries and academic traditions often have different formulations for responsible authorship. In addition, there may be varying interpretations and applications of these norms.
Issues related to authorship are a common source of conflict in research collaboration. Such conflicts can involve breaches of norms for truthfulness and collegiality, damage careers and relationships, undermine research culture, and hinder important knowledge development. Many of these conflicts can be prevented through training in publication ethics and careful planning.
What norms apply to co-authorship?
In Norway, the norms are reflected in various national guidelines on authorship:
The most important international resource for co-authorship is the recommendations from the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) / Vancouver Recommendations. For research projects receiving EU funding, it is mandatory to follow The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA). Other key resources include recommendations from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Montreal Statement, WCRI. These resources outline authorship criteria and provide tools for handling authorship disputes, among other things.
How to facilitate good co-authorship?
Project leaders and supervisors must initiate dialogue and agree on responsibilities and division of work, including (co-)authorship, at the start of the project. The agreement should be part of the project plan. Project leaders and supervisors play an important role in fostering an open and inclusive dialogue about expectations. Special attention must be paid to asymmetric power relations, and the interests of early-career researchers and other vulnerable actors must be safeguarded. It should be clarified early and in writing:
- Responsibilities throughout the process
- Which contributions qualify for authorship
- Who the co-authors are
- Who contributes what
- Criteria for the order of authors
- Who other contributors are (including institutions) and how they will be credited
- Where the research will be presented and published
- Agreement on deadlines, including when the research will be published
- Who owns what
- Who has the right to use what
- Who will have access to data and algorithms
- Who will have future access
A written agreement should be established, cf. points 1 and 4. There are many templates for authorship agreements that can be used. Here is one example of how such an agreement can be set up.Research institutions should facilitate and encourage the use of such agreements as part of their efforts to ensure that research at the institution complies with recognized research ethics norms and to fulfill their broad responsibility for research ethics.
The dialogue should be dynamic, and provisions must be made for changes in responsibilities and division of work, or other matters. The agreement should be updated continuously as the project evolves, and all parties must be involved and agree on changes.
A plan should be developed for how pressure, disagreements, and conflicts will be handled, and this should be included in the agreement.
It should be clearly stated what role (contribution and responsibility) each contributor had in the final publication of the scientific work. All forms of so-called honorary authorship are unacceptable. A person who has not made a significant contribution should not be listed as an author.
These recommendations are developed by the National Research Ethics Committees (FEK) and are based on national research ethics guidelines.
References
- ALLEA. European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. 2023, https://allea.org/portfolio-item/european-code-of-conduct-2023/
- COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. September 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3
- The National Research Ethics Committees. Guide on Institutions’ Responsibility for Research Ethics. 2023, Fostering research ethics: A guide for research performing organisations | Forskningsetikk
- NENT. Research Ethics Guidelines for Natural Sciences and Technology. 2024, Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology | Forskningsetikk
- NESH. Research Ethics Guidelines for Social Sciences and Humanities. 2021, edited 2023, Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities | Forskningsetikk
- ICMJE. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated 2023, http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
- Ministry of Education and Research (2016), Prop. 158 L (2015–2016) Act on the Organization of Research Ethics Work (Research Ethics Act). https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2017-04-28-23
- WCRI. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. 2013, Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations | Forskningsetikk