Discussion by CSSM
Picture: Alicia Ng, CSSM at Tvärminne Zoological Station, September 2024
How does a research group like CSSM—which organises itself as a poly-headed slime-mould—publish? With collective identities like the Kilpisjärvi Collective (Brives, Rest, and Sariola 2021) already in our midst, and with subsequent retreats to research stations for theory development (Tvärminne in 2024, Lammi in 2025), we now find ourselves with the sticky task of sorting out who to list as authors in our outputs.
By some measures, this task is a very mundane, humdrum step, usually because the contributions of each author are (and have been) clear from the get-go. But determining an author order can and even ought to be a more reflexive process of accountability, fidelity, and gratitude. As other research groups out there (e.g., CLEAR Lab) have pointed out, author order carries with it different stakes for different people. And it has the potential to both occlude and make visible the in-between, ephemeral moments of intellectual riffing, as well as to honour the multiple forms of labour and expertise that make research transformational.
On top of this, we at CSSM have commitments to inclusive research practices with the hopes of radically changing research cultures from within academia. So our efforts to articulate a protocol for collective publishing are simultaneously a chance for us to test out these principles in real time (do we agree to this, and does it work for a group of our kind and size?) while also sharing the meta-considerations that may become a blueprint for a later time, as our respective research trajectories might take us elsewhere. By no means is this The Answer; it’s a provisional report on how we’d like to draw the line around these authors being named.
We write this at a time when at least two of our ‘flagship’ publications are about to be submitted. When we look at these, and some of our other written works with 4+ authors, we noted upwards of five different ‘sets’ of authors to potentially name, including:
- The Inspiration Group: who provided the original impetus, platform, or idea seed that sparked the output (e.g., for CSSM, all who went to Tvärminne)
- The Scoping Group: who fine-tuned the original mass/mess of brainstormed ideas to sort out what is or isn’t part of this publication (e.g., for CSSM, those who met a few times after Tvärminne to hash out the paper’s argument)
- The Draft Zero Group: who take previous discussions and hash out ‘the ugly first draft’ (e.g., for CSSM, all who read the relevant literature and wrote paragraphs)
- The Polishing Group: who test and tinker with the ideas presented, reconcile, and smooth out the discrepancies (e.g., for CSSM, the executive team who fine-tuned the content to a near-completed state)
- The Leads: who finalise the publication, including the paratextual bits, and ‘click send’ on the submission; who will also be responsible for correspondence and future revisions/plans. (e.g., for CSSM, the key person/s keeping the momentum and facilitating discussions)
Of course, these are more stages than a stable group, and these categorisations reflect more of the general process of writing that the particular inflection points where authors become identifiable as being ‘noteworthy.’ But we could also think about who or what was pivotal along the way. Perhaps there’s also room to think about what other infrastructures, resources, material agents/actants and forces were a part of our process, too.
There’s something to be said about the sheer size of writing groups, for a cluster of four may require less wrangling than a morass of fifteen. For a sense of scale, we’ve had papers that started with 18 inspirers that subsequently concentrated to 12 who scoped, 6 who initially drafted, 4 who polished and are now determining the leads. In cases like these and others that have sprawling numbers, where and how do we acknowledge the various contributions?
Protocol Version 1.2
STEP ONE: identify the largest pool of names.
This step is guided by the inclusivity principle: for papers with four or more authors, start with the most expansive list of names. The rationale for this is that the current cache for author order falls to first and second (plus sometimes last) positions, which means that the in-between places (of being, say, fifth versus ninth author) show general involvement without much differentiation (unless otherwise explicitly noted in, for instance, the Author Contributions section of a journal; but not all journals require this). Nevertheless, to be listed is to have been part of the process, which is especially important for meta-data and discoverability. This step is also a chance to name those who were crucial in earlier conversations but are now absent (e.g., leaves, changed institutions), so we encourage to cast this initial net far and wide. While it is ideal for clearly defined lead authors to facilitate this task, those roles may not be self-evident at this stage—in which case, we encourage people to volunteer (or even try on the leading role for size). For CSSM, it meant to post this ‘call for names’ on the internal core group channel of Slack.
STEP TWO: ask people to nominate themselves—or others—from this large pool, into any of the roles.
This step is guided by the honour system. At this stage, we ask people to sort themselves according to what they believe and declare where they think they fit. A person might nominate themselves as a lead author, as a non-lead author, as a non-author even (and thus see themselves in the acknowledgements section).
We are very privileged that CSSM prioritises kindness over prestige and productivity, so we lean into the trusted relations that we’ve spent years developing. Asking people to self-nominate is both to ask authors to claim themselves as such, as much as it is a chance for people to step down because they do not see themselves as having meaningfully contributed. (A guiding question here might be: if a stranger asked you about this paper, would you feel comfortable talking about it and its current state? Answers that are not a resounding “yes” may suggest acknowledging time/expertise that went into earlier drafts, in say, the acknowledgements section of a paper.) A more general question of: “do you see yourself as an author this paper?” can also be a guide. For CSSM: please continue nominations in the core group channel as a reply to the thread with a due date.
The question of who ‘counts’ as an author is a sticky one. We want to avoid situations where someone operating with a strict notion of authorship (or due to other personal or professional idiosyncrasies) fails to nominate themselves (and does not receive authorship) while someone with a more liberal notion does nominate themselves and does receive authorship, despite similar input. Although we try to do things otherwise, we cannot assume that we are free of hierarchies, personal relationships, and other group aspects that can affect processes such as this. What we at CSSM can agree upon is that to be an ‘author’ does not merely mean ‘having written’ since contributions can span various acts (more on this below). People might have difficulties nominating themselves when the basis for nomination remains vague. It may also be that, in the absence of clearly defined roles, someone may have contributed at some point in the process versus having intimate knowledge of the final draft. Key principles regarding authorship nomination and what counts as an author were discussed, and the conclusion we arrived at was that we needed to keep descriptions of authorship intentionally loose to ensure that the process is not unjustly exclusive.
Authorship
- What can count: involvement in initial ideation, conceptualisation, fieldwork and research scoping, facilitation, networking, planning or participation, and other practical and intellectual contributions; contributions to methodological and analytical processes, writing, editing, coordinating, or finalising a manuscript draft
Author Nomination
- Self-nomination: do you feel that you can count yourself as an author based on the above criteria? Nominate yourself by telling about your contribution.
- Nominating others: is there another person who you feel deserves credit for authorship but they have not nominated themselves? Nominate them by telling about their contribution.
After Nomination
- After authors have been nominated, specific author attributions will be decided among the group according to the particularities of each group, the dynamics of the research, analytical, writing, and editing process, and related declaration requirements of the journal, as necessary.
We also recognise that certain authors have more to gain from being first and second authors—such as graduate students and early-career scholars. So this is also a time for people (e.g., in tenured positions) to voice what they don’t need due to their current career stage. Depending on the status of the paper when these discussions take place, there may also be room for a junior scholar to take on additional responsibilities and become a Lead author on the paper.
We also acknowledge that the corresponding author may not be the same as a lead author. In other words, the final polishing and executive decision-making might not be the same person doing the kind of administrative work of the organising authors who ‘hit send.’ In these instances, it is essential that the authors communicate openly and considerately about their roles as authors. Ideally, by this stage, it is apparent and agreed upon who would take the Lead role(s) and the approximate role attributions of other authors.
STEP THREE: the Leads propose a provisional author order.
This step is guided by the principle of visibility: The Leads will be tasked with making clear and explicit the multiple layers/versions/moments of contributions. One task for the Leads is to ensure that contributions and author positions are distributed with the same principles (e.g., “if person 1 is an author, person 2 should also be, even if they have not nominated themselves”). The Leads will then collate and synthesise the nominations, observations, and career stages of all to draft a brief statement on author contributions (e.g., “AB is responsible for data collection, CD is responsible for analysis and draft preparation”) and/or write the acknowledgements in such a way that nods to people who were part of the initial groups but do not see themselves as authors. For this latter category, we aim to recognise the gift of academic generosity: of being a part of the conversation, of offering one’s time and expertise, of even writing a few initial lines in early drafts, but not strongly identify as an author. The aim of this stage is to have shorter blurbs (relative to the entire iterated paper) about contributions that can be easily circulated, discussed, and approved by larger groups.
Some names may have been put forth (“oh that person was super crucial to our thinking”) without their knowing, so it’s best that the Leads confirm with them that indeed they’d like to have their name listed as an author. In instances where someone cannot be reached, we suggest including their names in the acknowledgements section.
If a journal does not have an explicit Author Contributions section, the Leads should draft something similar/analogous for the acknowledgments section.
STEP FOUR: the Leads report back to the (self-)nominated group, who agree/disagree.
This step is guided by the principle of transparency: the provisional ordering is discussed with radical honesty and respect. This is a moment of a two-way accountability where the Leads reflect their account of an accurate, appropriate, and fair ordering, against the accounts of those whose names are listed. It’s also a chance for the Leads to explain their rationales for why certain decisions were made and a chance for rebuttals. If called for, the group can also discuss and finalise the acknowledgements blurb. The Leads will select amongst themselves the corresponding author, who will click ‘submit’ and follow through on all the final practicalities of a submission. The Leads will also keep the rest of the group informed of developments (e.g., editorial decisions) and facilitate subsequent discussions when necessary. For CSSM: please bring this discussion to channels dedicated to specific papers.
Processual and Meta-Reflections
The process of arriving at this document was neither straightforward nor smooth—but we weren’t gnashing teeth at each other either. We’re grateful that the umbrella structure of CSSM has provided us with the infrastructural and relational means to talk this out. Our conversations spanned years, periodically revisited, and addressed the key ideas above in meetings attended by an inconsistent bunch. More than anything, our discussions were supported and limited by our internal communications platform (Slack), which we check at varying frequencies across CSSM. It may be that some members of CSSM will look at this document for the first time, after we’ve published it, with some of these decisions are taking place post hoc. With that, and with future papers in early stages, we hope that the version number above is a clear indication that we’re committed to trialing and revising our protocols as we run into hiccups or see opportunities for improvement.
For now, what we can say for certain is that an important part of this process is the trust and responsibility between, on the one hand, all authors listed and, on the other hand, the polishing/leading authors. We mean this especially in terms of standing by the arguments made in final versions of articles, which can sometimes be far removed from what was originally conceived/discussed/written because of the fine-tuning of a piece of writing (let alone the caprices of the editorial/review process). While these conversations are rarely easy, we are committed to articulating, iterating, and facilitating collective authorship, especially in anticipation of increasingly collaborative and multi-authored outputs in the future of microbial studies.