The first time I saw my analysis appear in a published paper without my name, I felt a mix of shock and resignation. I had produced the code, refined the analysis and shaped the results, yet there it was, under someone else’s authorship. A question remained unanswered: how could I have prevented this?
Over time, and across collaborations involving atmospheric and computational research, I reflected on what makes authorship fair – or fragile – and why early career researchers (ECRs) are particularly vulnerable. And so, IN-SAFE was born, a six-step checklist to help researchers make authorship transparent from the start.
IN-SAFE stands for:
- Initiate discussions: raise authorship questions early, before work begins
- Notify changes: communicate when roles evolve or new people join
- Secure work: record and back up your own contributions
- Archive materials: save key drafts, code versions and notes
- Formalise roles: agree on contribution statements before submission
- Educate others: share these habits within your teams.
IN-SAFE is a habit-building checklist that turns authorship from a last-minute negotiation into an ongoing, visible and fair process.
The habits below come directly from implementing the checklist in my own work. I now apply it to every collaboration.
Start with the conversation that protects you
Many authorship problems start before any data or code. People make assumptions, avoid the topic or trust vague promises. But later is the worst time to discuss authorship; memories fade and expectations drift. Now, when I join a project, I begin with a short, informal conversation:
- “What are each participant’s roles?”
- “How will authorship be handled as the project evolves?”
- “Can we revisit this at key milestones?”
Then I send a short email summarising what we discussed. It takes minutes but creates a clear, early record.
One mistake I made early on was not involving my supervisors soon enough. They only learned about my contributions when problems surfaced, which made it harder for them to help. My advice to ECRs: inform your supervisor as soon as you start contributing. A quick note saying “I’ve joined x project and I’m working on y” creates awareness that can protect you later.
This practice addresses the first part of IN-SAFE: initiate and notify. Early communication prevents confusion before it starts.
- The evolving meaning of ‘corresponding authorship’ in research
- Spotlight guide: From the lab to life: how to demonstrate research excellence
- Spotlight guide: An academics’ guide to policy impact
Keep a record of your ‘invisible’ work
A surprising amount of research labour leaves no trace: cleaning data, debugging code, refining figures, rerunning analyses. These invisible efforts can vanish from memory by the time authorship is discussed. Following the “secure” and “archive” steps of IN-SAFE, I now keep a working log in a shared document. Every few days, I note key actions:
- “Fixed error in simulation script”
- “Cleaned dataset”
- “Updated analysis and regenerated figures”
Digital tools make this even easier. GitHub, GitLab, Overleaf and Google Docs automatically record edits and timestamps, creating an objective trail of contributions without extra effort.
Authorship changes naturally as people join, shift focus or take on new roles. Discussing it only at submission almost guarantees conflict. I now suggest short check-ins at natural points: after major analyses, before drafting the paper and once more before submission. These discussions reflect the “notify” principle: authorship should evolve with the project, not be decided at the end.
Revisit authorship and ask for help early
Some of the most intellectually demanding work happens behind the scenes. In my case, months of coding simply disappeared from the published narrative. That experience taught me how easily invisible labour fades. A few habits uphold the “secure”, “archive” and “formalise” steps:
- Add comments in code, noting who developed key parts
- Export version histories before handing scripts over
- Keep emails or notes clarifying responsibilities
- Save interim figures that show your contribution.
These aren’t defensive moves. They ensure the intellectual history of the project is accurate and transparent. Most journals now use structured contribution statements such as the CRediT taxonomy, but these are often filled in at the last minute. Instead, I start formalising earlier using my working log or project history. This clarifies who led conceptual development, who built methodology or analysis, who handled data curation and who drafted or revised sections. Doing this early supports IN-SAFE’s “formalise” and prevents unconscious bias or “author order drift” (changes in the sequence of authors on academic or scientific publications after initial agreement or submission) and ensures ECRs are not reduced to vague acknowledgements that fail to reflect their real input.
If you sense an unfair shift in authorship or a communication breakdown, follow the “educate” principle: by seeking advice from research integrity offices, ombudspersons, graduate coordinators or trusted senior mentors. You don’t have to file a complaint – just talk. Bringing your documentation turns vague concerns into concrete evidence if needed.
Over time, the most rewarding change for me has been cultural. I discuss authorship openly with students and collaborators, share templates and encourage everyone to document and revisit roles regularly. You don’t need seniority to start these habits. The quiet professionalism of working transparently influences teams more effectively than policies ever could.
With small, consistent habits and early transparency, your work won’t just be used. It will be seen, credited and respected.
Hari Ram C. R. Nair is a postdoctoral researcher in the department of space, earth and environment at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment