15  Authorship, Contributorship, Presentations, and Public Dissemination

How we assign credit is one of the most important — and most emotionally charged — parts of running a research group. We handle it transparently, early, and fairly. The standalone policy in authorship-contributorship is authoritative; this chapter is the working summary.

15.1 Principles

  • ICMJE governs authorship. We follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria. Click here for details.
  • CRediT documents contributorship. We use a CRediT-style taxonomy to record who did what. Click here for details.
  • Authorship is discussed at the start of every project, not negotiated at the end. Surprises about credit are exactly the kind of “surprise” our culture forbids.
  • Mentees are credited fairly, including on a student-first authorship pathway where appropriate.

15.1.1 Institutional affiliations on bylines and disclosures

Your byline affiliation reflects your home institution, not the Institute’s parent entity (Section 2.2):

  • Lynn-affiliated members — list Lynn University (and the Educational Biomarker Discovery Lab where a lab affiliation is appropriate).
  • UPR-affiliated members — list the University of Puerto Rico unit you belong to.
  • The PI lists his Lynn University appointment and, where appropriate, the RIPLRT Institute / Felix E. Rivera-Mariani, PhD, LLC.
  • Independent or external members without a current institution — coordinate affiliation with the PI; “RIPLRT Institute” may serve as the
    research-group affiliation.

Do not list “Lynn University” for a member who is not Lynn-affiliated, and do not imply that the RIPLRT Institute is a Lynn University unit. Acknowledgments and funding disclosures name the entity that actually held the award or provided the resource — Lynn-administered grant, LLC/RIPLRT, sponsor, or UPR — not a default.

15.2 ICMJE authorship criteria

To be an author, a person must meet all four ICMJE criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to conception/design, or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; and
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; and
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Contributors who do not meet all four are acknowledged, not listed as authors. Meeting only one criterion (e.g., funding, or only collecting data) does not by itself confer authorship.

15.3 CRediT contributorship taxonomy

For each product we record contributions using CRediT roles, which makes credit specific and visible: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Map pod roles to CRediT contributions in the Authorship/Contributorship Agreement at project start, and update it as roles evolve.

15.4 Author order and the student-first pathway

  • First author: led the intellectual and practical work of the product — often the project’s analysis or writing lead, frequently a mentee.
  • Senior/last author: the PI or supervising scientist who provided direction and accountability.
  • Middle authors: ordered by contribution, discussed openly.
  • Student-first pathway: when a mentee has done the lead work, they earn first authorship. Building mentees into first- and co-first-author positions is a documented goal of this group (it appears in the IAP SMART goals) and a deliberate feature of our workforce-development mission.
NoteDisagreements about credit

Authorship disputes are handled early and directly, mediated by the PI, with reference to the documented contributorship agreement. Because we write the plan down at the start and update it as we go, most disputes are prevented rather than resolved. AI tools are never authors (Chapter 14).

15.5 Presentations, posters, and conferences

  • Every member is expected to present ongoing research at least once a year — mentees at a regional or (preferably) national conference aligned with their goals.
  • Presenting authorship follows the same fairness principles; the presenter is typically the person who led the work.
  • Use the Conference Abstract Planning Sheet and confirm the authorship list before submission.
  • We actively pursue travel awards and scholarships so cost is not a barrier (Chapter 19).

15.6 Public dissemination and science communication

Our mission requires translating science beyond journals:

  • Clinician-facing dashboards, community risk briefs, public-health playbooks, and bilingual science-communication content are first-class products (Chapter 16), and contributors to them are credited.
  • Public-facing materials (including social media via the group’s science-communication channels) get PI review before release, must respect data governance and privacy, and represent the group and its partners responsibly.
  • Bilingual (Spanish/English) communication is a core value; community materials should reach the communities they’re about.

15.7 Strategic, non-defensive framing

When we describe our own work — in talks, briefs, bios, or proposals — we lead with credentials and institutional value, not personal advancement, and we frame new work as a forward progression from prior work rather than a reprise. Self-promotion is fine; it should simply be credential-forward and self-decentered, able to survive scrutiny without sounding defensive. This protects both the science and the group’s reputation.

15.8 Acknowledgments and funding

  • Acknowledge funders, data providers, and repositories using the exact language each requires (BioLINCC, All of Us, MESA, etc. each specify acknowledgment text).
  • Acknowledge non-author contributors (with their permission).
  • Report conflicts of interest per venue and institutional policy.