Check author affiliations against the work’s institutional record
Check author-to-institution relationships before transferring affiliations into journal files and submission fields.
About 5 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Check which institutions are properly connected to the work before completing the author-affiliation lines. Confirm each author’s relationship, the relevant institutional names and the target journal’s instructions. A current job, a past appointment and an institution associated with the research are not automatically interchangeable.
This guide concerns preparing an accurate affiliation record and transferring it into submission files and fields. It does not resolve an institutional dispute, interpret an employment contract or determine authorship eligibility. Refer an uncertain relationship to the responsible author, institution or journal before presenting it as settled.
Establish what each line is meant to describe
Start with the author’s confirmed connection to the work, rather than copying the newest institution from a profile. Distinguish the institution associated with the research from an address used for present contact. Check the actual journal’s rules for recording both when someone has moved.
Cambridge’s author-affiliation guidance, checked on 2 November 2026, connects research affiliations with institutions where the work was conducted, supported or approved. It treats non-research content differently and discusses authors who have moved institutions. These are Cambridge’s instructions, not a universal formula. The applicable journal and institution may have additional requirements.
Create a private working list with one row per author. Record the proposed affiliation, its connection to the work, the confirmed institutional spelling and any unresolved question. The list is a checking aid, not a substitute for the journal’s submission format.
Work through an original fictional record
All people, institutions and events below are invented teaching material. No real appointment, institutional approval or entitlement is represented.
Imagine that Mira conducted her part of a fictional notice-language project at Alder Institute. After that work, she moved to Birch College. Her submission-system profile now lists Birch College. Ravi, another author, conducted his part at Cedar University. He also used a public reading room at Elm Library, but the team has not established any affiliation with that library.
| Fictional record | What a copied profile could conceal | Question to resolve before submission |
|---|---|---|
| Mira worked on the project at Alder Institute and later moved to Birch College | The newest profile entry could erase the institution connected to the research | How should the journal represent the research affiliation and the later move? |
| Ravi worked on the project at Cedar University | A short display name could omit part of the confirmed institutional name | What institutional name and location does the journal require? |
| Ravi used Elm Library’s public reading room | Access to a facility could be presented as a formal institutional relationship | Does the record establish a relevant affiliation, or should the use be described elsewhere if appropriate? |
An early working list assigns Mira only to Birch College and gives Ravi both Cedar University and Elm Library. Neither choice is justified simply by the newest profile or the fact that a building was used.
The next step is a factual and policy check, not a search for the most impressive affiliation. Suppose the authors confirm Alder Institute and Cedar University as the research affiliations, and the target journal instructs them to give Mira’s later institution in a separate current-address note. The working record should preserve those distinctions. It should not silently replace Alder with Birch or convert public-library access into a second affiliation.
This is a conditional teaching example. It does not establish that every institutional move needs the same note or that facility use can never form part of a legitimate institutional relationship. Follow the facts and instructions in the actual case.
Transfer the confirmed record into every required place
Check how the journal associates authors with institutions. A correct institution list is insufficient if a superscript or system selection links someone to the wrong entry. Read each author’s name together with the affiliation attached to it, rather than checking the list only as a block.
Compare the manuscript or title page with the submission fields. Cambridge’s guidance explains that institutions can transfer from account profiles and that the system’s entries normally determine its published affiliation information. Its presentation instructions also differ from a full postal-address format. Check the rules for the journal you are using rather than copying another publisher’s layout.
Do not change a co-author’s details from memory. Ask them to confirm the proposed record and any relevant changes. If a required field cannot accurately represent an established situation, seek the journal’s instructions before choosing a convenient but misleading entry.
Check the boundary with other author information
An affiliation line, an author-contribution record and a funding acknowledgement serve different purposes. A role in the work does not by itself establish an institutional affiliation, and an institution’s appearance in an affiliation line does not explain a funding relationship.
For double-anonymous review files, follow the actual instructions about where identifying details belong. Finally compare the author-to-institution links, names, location details and any permitted current-address note across the required files and fields. Resolve the relationship first; then make its presentation consistent.
