Prepare an accurate CRediT contribution record
Build an accurate CRediT contribution record from actual activities, agree roles with contributors and check the target journal’s submission requirements.
About 4 min read · Allow extra time for the practical checks
Start with the work each person actually did, then compare it with the contribution roles requested by the journal. Agree the record before submission. A role should describe an evidenced contribution, rather than someone’s seniority or the label they would prefer to receive.
CRediT is a way to report contributions. NISO describes a taxonomy of 14 roles for making that reporting structured and transparent. Completing a role list does not, by itself, settle who qualifies for authorship or the order of authors.
Read the journal’s requirements before choosing a format
Open the target journal’s current author instructions and submission form. Check whether it uses CRediT, where it collects the information and who must confirm it. Do not assume that every journal asks for the same manuscript statement.
For example, Elsevier’s Editorial Manager guidance explains that an author can have several roles and that contribution descriptions must be accurate and agreed. It also distinguishes the taxonomy from the journal’s authorship criteria. Sage’s guidance notes that adoption varies among its journals and gives its own submission directions. Follow the instructions applying to your paper rather than borrowing another publisher’s form.
The ordinary journal-fit check is a useful starting point: check the journal’s scope and requirements before treating a familiar submission process as universal.
Describe the activity before assigning the role
Make a working record with a person’s name, a concrete activity, an appropriate internal location or version record, the proposed role and confirmation status. Keep confidential working material in its proper location; the ledger need not reproduce it in a public statement.
The following people, activities and records are entirely fictional. The table illustrates a discussion aid, not evidence from a real project or a decision about authorship eligibility.
| Person | Activity and record to check | Proposed role to discuss | Confirmation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mira | Wrote the initial introduction and discussion in manuscript version 1 | Writing – original draft | Ask Mira to check the description |
| Rowan | Prepared the final figure designs, with source files in the figure folder | Visualization | Confirm which figures Rowan prepared |
| Jo | Collected the interview material documented in the fieldwork record | Investigation | Confirm the actual collection work |
These activities are broadly aligned with the role descriptions on Sage’s CRediT page. A real record still needs checking against the applicable definitions and the actual work. The example supplies no dates, files or facts that can be transferred into your submission.
Notice what the table leaves open. Writing the first draft does not establish who designed the study. Preparing figures does not establish who conducted the analysis. An interviewer’s collection work does not automatically establish every other research role. Add another role only when the person’s actual activity supports it.
Resolve uncertainty with the people involved
Read each proposed description with the contributor. Replace vague phrases such as “helped with the research” with an account specific enough to assess. Ask what was done and which part of the work it concerned. If two people shared an activity, record the shared work accurately rather than forcing it into an exclusive assignment.
If the activity is disputed or unclear, leave the record unresolved and use the journal’s or institution’s appropriate process. Do not make the form look complete by guessing. Equally, do not infer a contribution solely from job title, funding status, attendance at a meeting or a name’s position in an earlier draft.
This ledger supports accurate contribution reporting. It cannot replace the relevant authorship criteria or decide a disagreement about author inclusion or order.
Check the final submission against the agreed record
Once the descriptions are agreed, compare the selected roles with the current manuscript and submission fields. Check names carefully, retain any journal-required level-of-contribution information and make sure a role was not lost when copying between formats.
Keep the agreed working version so the submitting author can trace the entry back to the discussion. If work changes during revision, revisit the record and the journal’s amendment procedure; do not assume that an earlier confirmation covers a later activity. Submit the form or statement in the journal’s required location, using its current rules for changes.
