CRediT, Authorship and Research Technical Professionals

The University’s Code of Practice for Research and Knowledge Exchange endorses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), generated by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), and supplied online.

This webpage maps the Taxonomy onto the Code of Practice’s guidance on authorship and acknowledgment expectations for research outputs.

Section 4.21 of the Code establishes the University’s expectations for authorship:

  • Eligibility: Authorship is restricted to those who made a significant intellectual or practical contribution. No one meeting the criteria should be excluded. Honorary or ‘guest’ authorship is prohibited (4.21.1).
  • Decision-making: Authorship decisions should be agreed jointly, communicated to all team members, and made at the earliest possible opportunity (4.21.2).
  • Responsibility: Anyone listed as an author must be prepared to accept responsibility for the work, confirm its accuracy, and identify their contribution (4.21.3).
  • Compliance: Researchers must follow the authorship definitions of the relevant journal and appoint a corresponding author (4.21.4).
  • Attribution: All sources must be acknowledged and permissions sought where significant use of others' work is made (4.21.5).
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared in publications (4.21.6).
  • Duplicate submission or publication without disclosure is prohibited (4.21.7).
  • Suppression of findings: Researchers who feel they have been discouraged from publishing findings should escalate to their line manager or Associate Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange (4.21.8).

Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

CRediT is a framework for recognising the diverse contributions individuals make to research outputs. It comprises 14 distinct roles:

  • Conceptualisation: developing research goals and aims.
  • Data curation: managing, annotating, and maintaining research data.
  • Formal analysis: applying statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques.
  • Funding acquisition: securing financial support for the project.
  • Investigation: conducting experiments or collecting data/evidence.
  • Methodology: designing methods and creating models.
  • Project administration: co-ordinating the planning and execution of research activity.
  • Resources: providing materials, equipment, samples or infrastructure.
  • Software: developing, implementing and maintaining code.
  • Supervision: providing oversight, mentorship and leadership.
  • Validation: verifying the reproducibility and integrity of results.
  • Visualisation: preparing data presentations, charts and figures.
  • Writing (original draft): preparing the initial manuscript.
  • Writing (review and editing): critically reviewing and revising the published work.

LJMU researchers are expected to use CRediT to record contributions transparently, both for publications where journals require it and internally as part of good research governance.

CRediT and authorship eligibility

CRediT roles do not automatically confer authorship. CRediT is designed to capture a much broader range of contributions (for example, Data curation, software, visualisation) than traditional authorship criteria typically reward. Authorship requires a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the work. CRediT is a framework for evaluating whether that threshold has been met.

Where a contributor fulfils CRediT roles but does not meet authorship thresholds, they should be listed in the research output’s acknowledgements section, with their CRediT role(s) noted where appropriate. Where possible, authors should include the ORCiD identifiers of the individuals who are acknowledged (Holcombe et al. 2026).

Recording and declaring CRediT roles

Academic researchers should agree and document CRediT role allocations at the outset of a project where possible, consistent with the principles established in the Code of Practice for Research and Knowledge Exchange that authorship decisions should be made as early as possible. These allocations should be:

  • communicated clearly to all members of the research team
  • revisited and updated if roles and contributions change during the project
  • declared transparently in publications where the journal or funder requires it, or where it would aid clarity

A team member may hold multiple CRediT roles, and a single role may be shared across multiple contributors. Both should be recorded accurately.

Misrepresenting CRediT role allocations, whether by overclaiming or by omitting contributors, constitutes a breach of the honesty and integrity principles of the Code of Practice for Research and Knowledge Exchange.

Recognising the research contributions of Technical Staff

Research technical professionals make critical intellectual contributions at every stage of the research lifecycle. Their work spans all aspects of the research process, from conception and experimental design through to data generation, analysis, and dissemination.

Omitting technical staff contributions affects career progression, reduces the transparency and reproducibility of research, and misrepresents the true nature of how research is conducted. Consistent with the university's commitments to honesty, integrity, and diversity and inclusion, Project Leaders are responsible for ensuring technical staff are included in attribution discussions at the earliest point of any project in which they are involved.

Technicians work across CRediT roles

Technicians contribute across the range of CRediT roles. For technical work authorship and acknowledgment, the planning can consider two broad modes:

Directed technical work

This is work where an academic colleague states precisely what needs to be done and the technician then carries out the procedure to a defined protocol. Directed technical work ordinarily warrants acknowledgement.

Agentic technical work

This is work where the technician exercises independent judgement about how to undertake the work, such as selecting, adapting, or developing the most appropriate method. This work shapes the research question itself and the interpretability of the findings. It commonly arises in CRediT roles such as Investigation (where methodology choice directly affects what can be concluded), Methodology (developing or significantly adapting methods), Formal Analysis (applying analytical techniques and interpreting outputs), and Software (designing or developing data collection or analysis tools). Where a technician has exercised this level of intellectual contribution, authorship is appropriate.

LJMU staff and postgraduate researchers should see that distinctions between the two modes are often complex. A technician who begins in a directed capacity may, as the work project, make contributions that cross into agentic territory. They might redesign a methodology to suit an unexpected sample type or research question. Project teams should have attribution discussions as projects develop, not only at the outset of the work.

An indication of how CRediT applies to technician contributions in practice

The list below illustrates how CRediT roles commonly map onto different types of technical work. It also indicates the likely attribution threshold.

However, it is not exhaustive. The specific nature of each contribution should always be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

  • Investigation (1) - Acknowledgement
    Following a standard protocol to collect data.
  • Investigation (2) - Authorship
    Determining which experimental approach best addresses the research question.
  • Methodology - Authorship
    Adapting existing methods for a new research context.
  • Formal Analysis (1) - Acknowledgement
    Applying standard statistical procedures as directed.
  • Formal Analysis (2) - Authorship
    Selecting analytical frameworks and interpreting relationships in data.
  • Resources - Acknowledgement
    Managing, calibrating, and maintaining equipment.
  • Data Curation - Acknowledgement
    Processing, cleaning, and archiving data to standard.
  • Software - Authorship
    Developing or significantly adapting code for data acquisition or analysis.
  • Visualisation (1) - Acknowledgement
    Producing standard output figures.
  • Visualisation (2) - Authorship
    Designing a novel presentation of complex data to aid interpretation.
  • Project Administration - Acknowledgement
    Coordinating logistics, timelines, and compliance.
  • Supervision - Authorship or acknowledgement, depending on intellectual contribution
    Overseeing junior researchers or students within the technical team.
  • Writing (original draft) - Authorship
    Drafting methods sections or outputs relating to technical contributions.
  • Writing (review and editing) - Authorship
    Reviewing and approving accuracy of technical content before publication.

Structural and cultural barriers to fair attribution

Research conducted with strategic technical leaders across UK universities (Noke & Harris, 2026) demonstrates that technicians' contributions to research remain systematically under-recognised. This is often because of entrenched cultural assumptions about what technicians do.

The research suggests research technical professionals often self-identify as ‘doers.’ While accurate and motivated by enthusiasm to support colleagues and the institution, the framing can obscure the intellectual character of these professionals’ work, including overlooking how their work shapes defines the problems and shapes the research questions.

Project leaders should therefore:

  • familiarise themselves with the University’s Code of Practice for Research and Knowledge Exchange
  • include technical staff in authorship discussions at the project planning stage, not retrospectively
  • clearly communicate what type of contribution is expected and what level of attribution it is likely to attract
  • Revisit attribution decisions if the nature of a technical colleague's contribution changes as the project evolves
  • invite technical staff to participate in drafting sections of any manuscript(s) or other research output(s) that relate to their contribution(s), and to review and approve the relevant content before submission
  • ensure CRediT roles are recorded for technical and academic staff, both for publications where journals require it and as an internal record of contribution
  • communicate the outcome of peer review and publication to all formally acknowledged contributors, not only to listed authors

References

  • Holcombe, A. O. et al. (2026) ‘Improving acknowledgments sections to better credit research contributors’, Accountability in Research. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2026.2681050.
  • Partin K, Hosseini M. (2026) ‘Using the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) as a tool in resolving authorship disputes at the NIH’. Accountability in Research. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2596063.
  • Noke, H., Harris, C. (2026) ‘Navigating ambiguity: strategic technical leaders and their role in knowledge exchange’. J Technol Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10961.026.0349.4.