• Section 1 - Introduction and Purpose
• Section 2 - Scope and Application
• Section 3 - Guiding Principles
• Section 4 - Raising and Resolving Authorship Disputes
• Advice and Support
• Initial Action: Attempt Local Resolution
• Next Step: Report the Dispute
• Dispute Management Process
• Section 6 - Data Management
• Section 7 - Recordkeeping
• Section 8 - Definitions

Section 1 - Introduction and Purpose

(1) This Procedure details the processes associated with disputes, concerns or complaints relating to the designation of authorship and acknowledgment on publications and other research outputs, including grant applications, emerging from research conducted at the University of Wollongong (“the University”).

(2) This Procedure enacts the authorship requirements as outlined in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018 (“the Code”) and associated guidelines, the Universities Australia Principles for Respectful Supervisory Relationships and the Authorship Policy.

Section 2 - Scope and Application

(3) The Authorship Policy, Authorship Agreement Procedure and this Procedure are a suite of policies that should be considered together. The Authorship Acknowledgement Procedure should be applied prior to the use of this Procedure.

(4) This Procedure applies to all disputes involving a corresponding author affiliated with the University. Where the corresponding author is not affiliated with the University, the dispute should be resolved by the corresponding author’s institution or by the process agreed by the co-authors. Where a dispute is managed by another institution, authors affiliated with the University with be provided relevant support by the University. 

(5) Disputes involving a potential breach of the Code should be managed in accordance with the Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Research Code Procedure.

Section 3 - Guiding Principles

(6) Eligibility, author order and acknowledgments should be agreed upon as early as reasonably possible following the commencement of a project, noting that a project may have multiple outputs and the order of authorship may vary.

(7) Authorship disputes will be managed by the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) in accordance with this Procedure.

(8) Managing authorship disputes should be guided by the Risk Management Framework and Guidelines.

(9) The principles of procedural fairness and the safety and wellbeing principles of the University Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Research Code Policy apply.

(10) Actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed, per the Conflict of Interest Policy.

(11) The dispute resolution process will review information that was documented in the Authorship and Acknowledgement Agreement forms.

(12) Contributors have collective accountability for a research output.

(13) A dispute may be raised by any one or more of the contributors to a research output.

(14) Parties to the dispute shall make a good faith effort to resolve the matter through direct dialogue with each other prior to reporting an authorship dispute with Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE). In doing so, the requirements of the Code and the Authorship Policy should be applied.

(15) The University recognises the power imbalance in the supervisor-student relationship and that the greater power rests with the supervisor (Universities of Australia, 2016). HDR candidates may need to be supported when engaging in direct dialogue with a co-author, particularly where the co-author is also their supervisor. HDR candidates should be made aware of the support available to them should an authorship dispute arise. Available HDR candidate support is outlined by the Graduate Research School on the Graduate Research webpage.

(16) Research output that is under dispute can only be published when all valid authors and/or contributors agree on the authorship of the publication.

Section 4 - Raising and Resolving Authorship Disputes

Advice and Support

(17) Staff and students may seek advice and support from a Research Integrity Advisor or from staff in the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) unit.

(18) If HDR candidates need further advice, they may also contact the Dean of Graduate Research or staff in the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) unit.  If the dispute is not resolved adequately, HDR candidates may contact the Student Advocacy Service.

Initial Action: Attempt Local Resolution

(19) Parties to the dispute should attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute locally and informally in accordance with the Authorship Policy.

(20) Where the dispute involves a supervisor and HDR candidate, the HDR candidate may seek support, as identified by the Graduate Research School, to assist in resolving the dispute locally and informally.

(21) The corresponding author must keep records of the dispute and its resolution in accordance with the Records Management Policy.

(22) If the issue cannot be resolved at a local level it should be reported through formal channels.

Next Step: Report the Dispute

(23) Disputes that cannot be resolved locally should be reported to the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) unit via email at uow-researchintegrity@uow.edu.au. The report should include the following:

1. a brief summary describing the dispute;
2. a copy of the research output in dispute;
3. evidence or material to support the claims being made;and
4. the Authorship and Acknowledgement Agreement forms including the history of any changes made to the forms;

(24) Authorship disputes, including those made verbally, will be acknowledged and confirmed in writing to the person reporting.

(25) Where there is a legal agreement in place, the dispute will be resolved in accordance with the provisions of that agreement.

(26) Where a dispute is reported involving a corresponding author who is not affiliated with the University, it will be referred to the corresponding author’s institution or in accordance with any legal agreement.

Dispute Management Process

(27) Following receipt of the report the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) unit will inform the parties not raising the dispute and ask them to respond to it.

(28) A Research Integrity Officer will convene and provide support to an Authorship Dispute Panel duly appointed to formally adjudicate the dispute.

1. The Authorship Dispute Panel will consist of three (3) members with relevant experience from across the University.
2. Authorship Dispute Panel members must disclose any conflict of interest in relation to the matter which will be managed according to the Conflict of Interest Policy.
3. Parties to the dispute will be advised in writing of the members of the Authorship Dispute Panel and afforded an opportunity within seven (7) working days to raise a concern. The concern must align with the Conflict of Interest Policy.
4. The views of parties to the dispute concerning Authorship Dispute Panel members will be considered by the Research Integrity Officer and adjustments made where deemed appropriate.
5. Once the Authorship Dispute Panel is convened, an attempt should be made to resolve the matter within ten (10) business days.

(29) The parties to the dispute will be advised in writing of the progress and conclusion of the matter by the Research Integrity Officer.

(30) The Authorship Dispute Panel will review the material presented and make a determination, which may include:

1. removing those researchers that are deemed as failing to meet the authorship criteria and/or acknowledging their contributions;
2. including all contributors that are deemed as having met the authorship or acknowledgment criteria;
3. revising the authorship order and acknowledgments on the publication; and/or
4. referring the matter, or aspects of the matter, for management under the Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Research Code Policy and Procedure.

(31) The Authorship Dispute Panel may seek advice from an independent expert (as required) to assist them in making their determination.

(32) The Authorship Dispute Panel will report the outcome in writing to the Research Integrity Officer, who will inform the parties to the dispute and the relevant Head of School and/or Associate Dean Research or Associate Dean Research. Matters involving HDR candidates will also be reported to the Dean of Graduate Research.

(33) Appeals against the decision of the Authorship Dispute Panel will only be considered on the grounds of procedural fairness and will be determined by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Sustainable Futures).

(34) The Research Integrity Officer will receive an appeal and provide the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Sustainable Futures) with all relevant materials.

(35) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Sustainable Futures) will decide the appropriate course of action which may include, but is not limited to, dismissing the appeal, initiating a review of the procedures used by the Authorship Dispute Panel to arrive at the decision, initiating a new dispute resolution process, or requesting the Authorship Dispute Panel re-convene to consider feedback in response to their decision.

(36) Communication with the parties to the dispute regarding the appeal will be managed by the Research Integrity Development and Ethics (RIDE) unit.

Section 5 - Authorship and Potential Breaches of the Code

(37) Where potential breaches of the Code in relation to the attribution or omission of authorship or acknowledgment are identified the matter must be dealt with in accordance with the Managing and Investigating Potential Breaches of the Research Code Policy and Procedure.

(38) Examples of potential breaches of the Code related to authorship include, but are not limited to:

1. crediting authorship to or accepting authorship from individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship (for example, honorary, gift or guest authorship;
2. failing to ascribe authorship to individuals where those individuals meet the requirements of authorship (for example, ghost authorship);
3. attributing authorship to individuals without their consent;
4. publishing research without the final approval of the attributed authors;
5. failure to comply with an authorship agreement;
6. making false claims about the authorship in a grant application; or
7. using generative artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, without disclosure.

Section 6 - Data Management

(39) Researchers must act in accordance with the Research Data Management Policy and the Authorship Policy.

Section 7 - Recordkeeping

(40) Records must be kept in accordance with the Records Management Policy and the Research Data Management Policy.

(41) The corresponding author is responsible for all communications and record keeping pertaining to the research output inclusive of requests for data, agreed authorship discussions, authorship orders and written agreements and any variations and exceptions. This is in accordance with the Research Data Management Policy and any other applicable guidelines.

(42) A supervisor and HDR candidate are jointly responsible for complying with the document requirements of the Authorship Policy and the Authorship and Acknowledgement Agreement Procedure, including where the HDR candidate is the corresponding author.

(43) All scholarly outputs must be recorded in the University’s research publications system and the University’s institutional repository.