NIH IRP Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy

1. Policy

Responsible attribution of authorship is essential to the ethical conduct of research. Unethical authorship practices, such as granting authorship to those who do not deserve it or denying authorship to those who do, undermine the integrity of scientific research and trust among researchers. According to NIH policy, authorship on scientific publications and/or presentations should be based on the following: 1) making a substantial contribution to the conceptualization, design, execution, or interpretation of the research; 2) drafting or substantively reviewing or revising the study manuscript; and 3) taking responsibility for publication of the research and particularly the individual’s own contribution to it. Individuals who do not meet these authorship criteria but who have assisted with the research in some manner (e.g., donating a reagent) should be acknowledged in the article but not named as authors. It is expected that members of each research group will freely and openly discuss, document, and resolve questions regarding authorship, including the order of authors, before and during the course of a study and up to the time of its publication. See Guidelines and Policies for the Conduct of Research in the Intramural Program at NIH.

Conflicts over authorship attribution and order are not uncommon. Such conflicts shall be resolved fairly, collegially, effectively, and expeditiously. The purpose of this policy is to describe the procedures that shall be followed in the NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) to resolve an authorship conflict.

1.1 Definitions (in alphabetical order)

1. Binding decision: a decision concerning authorship credit or responsibilities made after a request for a formal adjudication of an authorship conflict under this policy. The NIH has the legal authority to ensure that current NIH researchers comply with binding decisions according to provisions found in the NIH Policy Manual, Chapter 1754 regarding administrative offenses (for employees), Chapter 2300-320-7 (for intramural research training awardees), and Chapter 2300-308-1 (for guest researchers and special volunteers). For NIH contractors, legal authority for compliance derives from the terms agreed to under such contracts. While the NIH may not have legal authority to enforce binding decisions on individuals who are not current NIH researchers, such as extramural scientists or former NIH employees or trainees, it will work with appropriate parties, such as journal editors and/or Institutions former NIH researchers are affiliated with, to try to ensure that these individuals comply with binding decisions.
2. Conflict of interest: An individual has a conflict of interest, under this policy, if they have a financial, personal, or professional interest related to the manuscript or paper the authorship conflict refers to, which is reasonably expected to bias their judgment or decision-making concerning management or adjudication of the authorship conflict.
3. Deciding official (DO): an NIH employee who is the official designee to make a binding decision under this policy. If all the parties to the authorship conflict are from the same NIH Institute or Center (IC), then the Scientific Director (SD) of that IC is the DO, unless the SD has a conflict of interest. If the parties are from different ICs or they are from the same IC and the SD has a conflict of interest, then the Deputy Director for Intramural Research (DDIR) is the DO. If both the SD and the DDIR have a conflict of interest, the NIH Principal Deputy Director (PDD) is the DO. If the PDD also has a conflict of interest, the NIH Director or designee will select a DO.
4. Factfinder (FF): An NIH employee or contractor who reviews evidence related to the authorship conflicts and makes recommendations to the DO.
5. Good faith: The act of an individual who, under this policy, makes an honest and sincere effort to resolve a conflict in a timely manner, is not misrepresenting facts, and is cooperating fully with the authorship conflict resolution process.
6. NIH intramural researcher: An individual who conducts research supported by the NIH IRP, including, but not necessarily limited to, individuals with the following official designations: NIH employee; NIH special government employee; NIH fellows (including but not limited to postbaccalaureate scholars, pre-doctoral fellows, postdoctoral fellows, research fellows and clinical fellows); NIH contractor; NIH visiting fellow; NIH special volunteer; NIH intern; and NIH guest researcher.
7. Party to an authorship conflict: An individual who is named as an author on a publication or presentation that is the subject of an authorship conflict; or an individual who is not named as an author and is disputing this omission.
8. Research supported by the IRP: Research for which the NIH IRP provides financial, material, technical or logistical support, including, but not limited to: Funding, access to or use of data, materials and supplies (such as reagents and cell lines), equipment, and laboratory or office space.
9. Retaliation: Any unwarranted adverse action (or threat of an adverse action), including but not limited to termination of employment, demotion or reassignment of duties, taken by one party against another involved in the conflict, against the FF, or against an individual involved with the conflict resolution process.

2. Applicability

This policy applies to conflicts about authorship credit and responsibilities, including the assignment of authorship or the order of authors on publications (e.g., articles, books, or abstracts) or professional presentations in which: a) the research on which the publication or presentation is based is or was supported (in whole or in part) by the NIH IRP, and b) the first (or co-first), last, or corresponding author is or was an NIH intramural researcher during the support period.

3. Procedures

3.1 Informal Resolution

All parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve their conflicts informally in a timely manner before seeking formal adjudication of their conflict. Informal processes for resolving conflicts include, but are not limited to: a) discussions among the parties involved in the conflict to resolve it in accordance with NIH authorship policy; or b) consultations with the Laboratory/Branch Chief, Department Head, NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education (OITE) and/or Institute/Center (IC) Training Director, IC Scientific Director, NIH Ombuds Office/Center for Collaborative Resolution (CCR), the Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO) (or designee), or other NIH researchers or administrators who may assist the process of informal resolution. Both parties are strongly encouraged to voluntarily seek the assistance of the NIH Ombuds before triggering the formal adjudication process. If the parties have not reached an informal resolution of their conflict within three months, they shall consider asking for formal adjudication (see Section 3.2), but they are always free to do so earlier. If all parties agree, authors may extend the informal negotiations beyond three months.

3.2 Formal Adjudication

If the parties are unable to resolve their conflict informally, any party to the conflict may request formal adjudication. The parties always have the option to withdraw from the formal adjudication process prior to a binding decision if they mutually agree in good faith they can resolve their conflict informally.

1. The formal adjudication process begins when a party (or parties) to the authorship conflict contacts the AIRIO to request formal adjudication. The request shall be made in writing or by email (AIRIO@od.nih.gov) and must provide a brief summary describing the complaint(s), name the parties involved, and the history of the conflict.
2. The AIRIO (or designee) will assess the request to determine: a) whether the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy (i.e., the policy described herein) applies to it; and b) whether there are other issues, such as possible research misconduct, harassment, bullying, or conflicts of interest, each of which would also need to be referred to appropriate NIH officials and handled independently and in accordance with NIH policies. The AIRIO assessment must be made within four (4) business days after receiving the request for adjudication, unless extenuating circumstances exist (e.g., illness, federal government shutdown, etc.) that justify a longer timeline. The AIRIO will also notify parties to the conflict that a request for formal adjudication has been made, and that it is within the scope of the policy.
3. If the AIRIO determines that the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy applies to the conflict, the AIRIO will determine who qualifies as the DO under this policy and inform the DO of the request for formal adjudication as well as the SDs of the parties involved in the research (if applicable) within two (2) business days after completing the assessment, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. The AIRIO will notify the parties of who shall serve as the DO. If at least one of the parties to the conflict objects to the AIRIO’s determinations concerning conflicts of interest under this policy, the AIRIO will consult with the NIH Ethics Office on this issue.
4. If the AIRIO determines that the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy does not apply to the conflict, the AIRIO shall explain to the parties why this is the case and shall provide, if appropriate, information about NIH resources that may be available to the parties to help them resolve their conflict, such as the Ombuds Office/CCR or OITE. Any party may appeal the AIRIO’s decision that the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy does not apply to their conflict to the NIH Committee on the Conduct of Science and Ethics (CSCE). Appeals to the CSCE must be made within five (5) business days after receiving the decision, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. If the CSCE rules in favor to the appealing party, the AIRIO shall apply the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy to the conflict.
5. The DO may appoint a person or persons to serve as the factfinder(s) (FF) for the conflict. Normally, the FF will be a member of the DO’s leadership staff (or trusted designee). The DO may delegate the AIRIO as the FF if the DO determines (in consultation with the AIRIO) that it would be appropriate to do so. If the AIRIO is named as the FF, they may designate this task to member(s) of their staff. The DO will appoint an FF within five (5) business days after being notified by the AIRIO about the authorship conflict, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline.
6. The FF shall review evidence necessary to resolve the authorship conflict including, but not limited to, testimony from the parties, testimony from outside experts, publications, presentations, drafts of manuscripts, research records, research proposals, and emails. Parties to the conflict shall cooperate in good faith with requests for evidence. As appropriate, the FF may address various matters related to authorship credit and responsibilities that are at issue in the conflict, such as assignment of authorship, authorship order, co-first, co-senior or co-corresponding authorship, interpretations of data, or choice of publication venues. The FF will keep records of activities undertaken to resolve the conflict, such as correspondence with the parties and meeting minutes, and issue a recommendation to the DO. The FF will conclude the fact-finding process and make a recommendation within ten (10) business days, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline.
7. The DO shall make a binding decision and issue it as a written statement to the parties to the conflict and their immediate supervisor(s) (if they are NIH researchers) within five (5) business days after receiving the recommendation of the FF, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. The DO will also inform the AIRIO of the outcome of the formal adjudication process within one (1) business day after making a binding decision, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. If the publication or presentation includes more than four authors, the DO may issue the written statement to the corresponding author who will inform the other authors on behalf of the deciding official. A binding decision shall have no ethical or legal implications for conflicts concerning patents. Authorship and inventorship are considered distinct concepts under the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy and as such resolved through separate procedures.
   Many journals and pre-publication archives require all authors to concur with manuscript submission. It is possible that a party to the conflict, who is not currently an NIH intramural researcher, may refuse to abide by the binding determination, and may refuse to sign off on the submission despite the binding determination. In some cases, editors may prefer that the NIH corresponding author remove the disputant as an author rather than submitting the manuscript with the authorship order as determined by the DO. In situations such as this, the DO should concur with this approach for getting the manuscript submitted.
8. Any party may appeal a binding decision. Appeals must be made within ten (10) business days after receiving a binding decision. Appeals may be made through the AIRIO, and directly to the DDIR if the DDIR was not the DO who made the binding decision. If the DDIR was the DO, the appeal should be made to the PDD. Under the circumstances when the PDD or a person appointed by the NIH Director or his designee was the DO, the appeal should be made to the NIH Director or his designee. Requests for an appeal must state the basis for the appeal. The primary basis for appeal is that the Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy was not followed correctly. Some material collected for fact-finding may be protected by the Privacy Act, and may not be shared with the parties of the conflict; this material (such as credit and contribution matrices generated as part of the process that represent the opinion of one party to the conflict) only will be shared by the factfinder with the DO on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of making a determination or as otherwise required by law. Other fact-finding material, such as manuscript drafts and research group presentations that is determined not to be protected under the Privacy Act, may be shared upon request with a party of the conflict, subject to confidentiality agreements as appropriate. The fact-finding report is a pre-decisional document that summarizes multiple sources of information deemed to be relevant to the conflict per the factfinder’s professional judgment and will not be shared with the parties of the conflict. However, parties to the conflict may request from the DO a post-decisional executive summary of the factual basis upon which the DO made a determination, so long as the content of the executive summary does not disclose material protected by the Privacy Act.
9. If a party appeals a DO decision to the DDIR, the DDIR will review the appeal and make a decision within fifteen (15) business days, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. The DDIR will rule in favor of the party making the appeal only if there is clear and convincing evidence for the appeal. If the DDIR rules against the appealing party, the DO’s decision remains in effect. If the DDIR rules in favor of the appealing party, the DDIR may: a) refer the matter back to the DO with instructions to take appropriate steps to resolve the conflict; or b) rule on the matter as the new DO and follow the procedures that the DO must follow when they act as the deciding official under Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy.
10. If a party appeals a DDIR decision, the PDD will review the appeal and make a decision within fifteen (15) business days, unless extenuating circumstances justify a longer timeline. The PDD will rule in favor of the party making the appeal only if there is clear and convincing evidence for the appeal. If the PDD rules against the appealing party, the DDIR’s decision remains in effect. If the PDD rules in favor of the appealing party, the PDD may: a) refer the matter back to the DDIR with instructions to take appropriate steps to resolve the conflict; or b) rule on the matter as the new DO and follow the procedures that the DO must follow when they act as the deciding official under Authorship Conflict Resolution Policy. A binding decision made by the PDD or a DO appointed by the NIH Director or designee is not appealable, but a party may ask for reconsideration of the binding decision. Requests for reconsideration must state clear and convincing reason(s) and must be made within ten (10) business days after receiving a binding decision.
11. A party may consult with their personal adviser and may bring the personal adviser (such as an attorney or colleague) to interviews or meetings during fact-finding proceedings; the party should inform the meeting organizer in advance of the attendance of the personal adviser. When an adviser is present for an interview or meeting, their activities will be limited to advising the party, as opposed to representing the party to the FF and may not direct questions to the FF.
12. All timelines start anew if all the parties mutually agree in good faith to withdraw from the formal adjudication process at any point prior to a binding decision being reached.
13. The AIRIO shall establish a system of records of formal adjudications of authorship conflicts under this policy. The authorship adjudication process can involve private and sensitive information and shall be considered confidential. FFs, parties to the conflict, witnesses, and any other individuals assisting in resolving the conflict shall limit disclosure of information resulting from the process to those who need to know in order to facilitate a transparent, competent, objective, and fair process. This limitation includes disclosure of the fact that an authorship adjudication process is ongoing, or that a binding decision has been made. In general, discussions about the conflict resolution process by FFs shall take place only within the context of meetings and official business of the FFs. Parties to the conflict may consult with mentors, advisors, or others who may assist with the process, but they have a responsibility to remind such individuals that the information may not be shared. Discussions about the conflict with the NIH Ombuds Office/CCR and with Employee Assistance Program are considered absolutely confidential, but otherwise the matter may be discussed with others only on a need-to-know basis.
14. During the conflict resolution process, if the DO or FF become aware of behavior that may violate NIH polices on retaliation, harassment or inappropriate conduct (Manual Chapter 1311), or may violate any other NIH policies, they have a duty to report their concerns to the appropriate office.
15. Retaliation in response to a good faith engagement with the process is prohibited. The DO may consult with or refer matters to appropriate NIH officials, including the Director of Human Resources, if they believe that retaliation may have occurred and that such action may constitute breaching employee standards of conduct and related personnel regulations.
16. Failure to abide by the binding decision (when an appeal is rejected or when an appeal is not permitted) may result in action by NIH officials including contacting the journal to which a manuscript has been submitted requesting correction or retraction of the article, and notification of research integrity officials at another institution if any authors on the paper are currently affiliated with another institution. In these circumstances, NIH officials may disclose to these parties that there was a conflict resolution process, the outcome, and the reasoning behind the outcome to the extent permitted by the Privacy Act. Typically, in authorship conflicts, journals rely upon institutional officials to resolve authorship issues, and therefore it is unlikely that a party could bypass the institutional decision by working directly with a journal. NIH will make every effort to work with extramural institutions that have co-authors impacted by the binding decision, and with the publishers of the contested paper, to ensure that the binding decision is faithfully executed. NIH takes seriously its commitment to ensure that scientific publications honestly and accurately represent authorship contributions. In addition, failure to abide by the binding decision may result in disciplinary action by the supervisor of an NIH employee or trainee, consistent with NIH policies and processes.
17. Manuscripts may need to undergo substantial revisions as a condition of publication, and authors may be directed by journals to provide a significant amount of additional data that necessitates performing new experiments. Under these circumstances, either party may request a modification of the binding decision so that authorship order accurately reflects the relative contributions to the manuscript. The party must provide the deciding official with sufficient documentation of the changes in the manuscript and any concomitant need for changes in the authorship order. Such deviations from the binding decision must be approved by the DO.
18. All records pertaining to this Policy must be retained and disposed of under the authority of NIH Manual 1743, “Managing Federal Records,” Appendix 4, Records Management Resources. These records must be maintained in accordance with current NIH Records Management and Federal guidelines. The AIRIO will share this information (in aggregate form) with the CSCE at least once per year.
19. The AIRIO will provide training for individuals who plan to serve as FFs.