top of page

Authorship Guidelines and Manuscript/
Presentation Approval Process

This policy establishes clear and transparent authorship guidelines for works published using ETC data. Additionally, it outlines the approval process for proposed manuscripts and presentations.

Rationale

The establishment of clear and transparent authorship guidelines is essential for ensuring that contributions to research are appropriately recognized within the consortium. Such guidelines are critical for several reasons:

  1. Fair Recognition of Contributions: Authorship represents a significant acknowledgment of an individual’s intellectual, technical, and conceptual contributions to a research project. Clear guidelines ensure that those who have made meaningful contributions are duly credited, preventing potential disputes or misunderstandings.

  2. Academic Integrity: Adhering to agreed-upon criteria for authorship helps maintain the integrity of the research process. It ensures that authorship is not awarded based on seniority, affiliation, or other non-contributory factors, but rather based on tangible involvement in the study’s design, execution, and reporting.

  3. Transparency and Accountability: Explicit guidelines foster transparency in the authorship process and allow for the fair resolution of any disagreements. They clarify the expectations and responsibilities of each author, particularly regarding data collection, analysis, writing, and revision.

  4. Alignment with Ethical Standards: Following established authorship guidelines is in line with best practices in research ethics, as endorsed by reputable academic journals and institutions. It upholds the principles of honesty, accountability, and proper attribution within the scientific community.

  5. Collaboration and Trust: In a consortium with multiple researchers and institutions, clear authorship criteria contribute to smoother collaboration and help maintain trust among team members. They prevent the undermining of relationships and ensure that every contributor is fairly recognized for their work.

Overall Principles

  • Manuscript authorship for the ETC is guided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship.

  • Study proposers have key scientific impact and will usually serve as the first author.

  • Data collectors have key scientific impact on the final scientific product, and the ETC encourages including them as manuscript authors whenever possible in a way that is consistent with the ICMJE guidelines. 

  • Whenever possible, authorship order will be proposed before the initiation of an ETC study. At this time, anticipated reasons that could lead to a change in authorship order later on will also be defined, along with mitigation plans (e.g., if a primary recruitment site decides to withdraw, then the site PI will no longer be senior author).

  • We encourage liberal use of co-first and co-senior authors, which provides four (or more) total slots for first and senior authors.

  • Consortium authorship is recommended for all papers, considering the following options: 

    1. Individual Authors “for” the Exposure Therapy Consortium (All Members of the ETC Are Not Authors); 

    2. Individual Authors “and” the Exposure Therapy Consortium (All Members of the ETC Are Authors); 

    3. The Exposure Therapy Consortium (All Members of the ETC Are Authors)

  • Collegial discussion among potential authors is the primary mechanism for configuring authorship order. Discussion will be initiated by the study proposers and includes data collectors and the ETC Research Steering Committee (R-SC).

  • The R-SC committee will review and provide final approval for manuscript and presentation submission. Any manuscript or presentation submission issues related to scientific content and authorship are subject to review by the R-SC. The R-SC committee will generally seek to defer to the study proposers when possible, but the R-SC committee retains the right to intervene whenever they choose and on any grounds consistent with ICMJE guidelines (including ethical and scientific reasons).

  • If disputes arise among study authors regarding authorship order that cannot be resolved by collegial discussion, the R-SC committee will make final decisions on manuscript and presentation authorship.

Specific Guidelines

Primary Analyses

  • If any participant recruiting site PI contributes more than 50% of data used in an investigation, then that PI will have the opportunity to assert senior or co-senior authorship on the submitted manuscript.

  • Negotiations for authorship will proceed in the following order:

    1. Study proposer

    2. Any sites that have contributed >50% of data (if applicable)

    3. R-SC

  • Prior to project initiation, study proposers will delineate a scope of work that proposes specific project execution and authorship roles according to the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).

    • Authors will self-rate their proposed contribution level for each CRediT domain, which will guide authorship order selection. An abridged set of ratings will be completed at the start of the project to reflect initial plans, and a full set will be completed following manuscript completion.

Secondary Analyses

Manuscripts and presentations focusing on secondary analyses can be submitted after the primary analysis manuscript is published. If submitted within three years of the primary outcome paper, the guidelines for these submissions are the same as those for primary analyses. If the submission falls outside that three year window, it is possible that PIs or site PIs of the parent project are no longer available or interested and thus may not be included as co-authors on manuscripts and presentations. The investigative team will give PIs or site PIs a two-week period to decide if they want to be included.

Other Contributions

The requirement for manuscripts and presentations that do not report on analyses of data collected by the ETC (e.g., books, chapters, review papers) is that authorship is assigned consistent with overall principles outlined above.. 

Acknowledgments

  • Funding Support: All papers should acknowledge funding support and relevant sponsorship for each individual and, where relevant, the consortium. This ensures transparency about the financial resources that enabled the research.

  • Contributions: Authors should acknowledge individuals who have contributed to a manuscript or presentation but not to the extent necessary to warrant authorship. This could include technical support, data collection assistance, or other forms of collaboration that were important to the project but don't meet the criteria for authorship.

  • Consent: When acknowledging specific individuals, the lead author should request consent from the individual prior to publication or presentation. This respects the privacy of collaborators and ensures they are aware of how their contributions will be recognized in the publication/presentation.

Approval Process

The requirement for review and approval of manuscript and presentation submissions by the Research Steering Committee (R-SC) is primarily to facilitate fair collaboration and ensure that all contributions are properly recognized. This process is not meant to be burdensome but rather a mechanism to prevent potential future problems and conflicts among members. The R-SC's involvement ensures that authorship is based on significant contributions to the study’s design, execution, and reporting, not on non-contributory factors. This aligns with ethical standards and promotes transparency and accountability. By reviewing authorship, the R-SC is working to maintain the integrity of the research process, ensuring that authorship is awarded fairly and that the expectations and responsibilities of each author are clear. Additionally, the R-SC provides a mechanism for the fair resolution of any disagreements that may arise among study authors. Finally, the R-SC provides final approval for manuscript and presentation submission.

​

1. Submission

The manuscript/presentation submission form collects details for review and approval. It requires the submitter's information, title, submission type, and date, as well as author lists, CRediT statements, and acknowledgments. It asks about authorship order, data contributions, rationale, and changes. The form also covers scientific content, key findings, and declarations about adherence to guidelines.

 

2. Review

Upon submission, proposals undergo review by the R-SC to confirm completeness and match with the ETC’s authorship guidelines. If concerns arise, the committee may request revisions and resubmission before proceeding.

​

3. Consortium Review Decision

Following review, the proposal will receive one of the following decisions:

  • Approved: The proposal meets all criteria and may proceed as planned.

  • Approved with Revisions: The proposal requires minor revisions before approval is granted.

  • Rejected: The proposal does not align with ETC’s mission or fails to meet scientific/ethical standards.

  • Pending further review: Substantial changes are necessary, and the revised proposal must be resubmitted for review.

bottom of page