For Authors · Reference matrix
Funder mandates for CRediT
Which research funders require a CRediT statement, which recommend one, and which are silent. A working reference for grant-funded authors and research administrators.
Funder policy on contributor attribution is changing, slowly. Across the major national and multinational funders, the trend is toward encouraging structured contributorship statements on funded outputs — typically deferring to whatever taxonomy the receiving journal already uses. In practice that taxonomy is CRediT (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022), now operationalised by Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Cell Press, PLOS, BMJ and the great majority of other major publishers.
Because of this journal-side dominance, funders rarely need to issue their own mandates: requiring open-access publication in a journal that requires CRediT effectively pulls the requirement through. A small number of funders (NIHR, Wellcome, Cancer Research UK, Gates, HHMI, CZI) have nonetheless published explicit recommendations of CRediT in their own policy text.
The table below covers 40 funders across 8 regions. Status definitions:
- Required — funder policy text explicitly requires a CRediT statement as a condition of award or reporting.
- Recommended — funder policy text suggests authors use CRediT for funded outputs.
- Encouraged — guidance, blog post, or programme-officer endorsement mentions CRediT, but the formal policy text is silent.
- Silent — no published funder stance on CRediT or contributor taxonomies.
Snapshot of 6 recommended, 20 encouraged, 14 silent, 0 required — across 40 funders in this matrix.
The step most authors miss
Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.
A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.
Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.
Per-funder deep dives
Funder mandate pages (15)
Each major funder below has its own page documenting CRediT status, open-access policy, research-data-management requirements, submission system, and author guidance in depth. Use these when you need the full picture for a specific grant.
North America
CIHR
EncouragedCanada
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Funder deep dive →Gates Foundation
RecommendedUnited States
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Funder deep dive →HHMI
RecommendedUnited States
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Funder deep dive →NIH
EncouragedUnited States
National Institutes of Health
Funder deep dive →NSERC
SilentCanada
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Funder deep dive →NSF
SilentUnited States
National Science Foundation
Funder deep dive →SSHRC
SilentCanada
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Funder deep dive →Europe
ERC
EncouragedEuropean Union
European Research Council
Funder deep dive →Horizon Europe
EncouragedEuropean Union
Horizon Europe (EU Framework Programme)
Funder deep dive →MRC
EncouragedUnited Kingdom
Medical Research Council
Funder deep dive →NIHR
RecommendedUnited Kingdom
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Funder deep dive →UKRI
EncouragedUnited Kingdom
UK Research and Innovation
Funder deep dive →Wellcome
RecommendedUnited Kingdom
Wellcome Trust
Funder deep dive →United States
United States
US federal funders generally defer to journal author guidelines on contributorship. Several have published explicit endorsements of structured attribution; others remain silent at the policy level even where programme officers reference CRediT informally.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
National Institutes of Health (NIH) United States | National | Encouraged | 2024 | NIH does not require a CRediT statement in progress reports or final reports. Authorship policy defers to ICMJE and journal practice. CRediT is widely used by NIH-funded papers because it is the journal-side default. |
National Science Foundation (NSF) United States | National | Silent | 2024 | PAPPG (NSF 24-1) is silent on CRediT. Awardees report contributors via the project-personnel block; no taxonomy is mandated. |
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) United States | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits NIH policy. No NIAID-specific CRediT requirement; programme staff reference CRediT informally in collaborative-team guidance. |
National Cancer Institute (NCI) United States | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits NIH policy. The NCI Cancer Moonshot data-sharing guidance recommends structured attribution for collaborative outputs but does not specify CRediT. |
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) United States | National | Silent | 2024 | Inherits NIH policy. No published NIBIB-specific stance on CRediT. |
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science United States | National | Silent | 2024 | Office of Science guidance covers public access, data management, and PI eligibility. CRediT is not addressed in current solicitations. |
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) United States | National | Silent | 2024 | NASA SARA grant policies are silent on contributorship taxonomies. Open-science mandates under SPD-41a focus on data and software sharing, not authorship attribution. |
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) United States | National | Silent | 2024 | NIST publication policies defer to journal practice. No CRediT mandate has been published. |
Department of Defense (DOD) United States | National | Silent | 2024 | DOD biomedical programmes (CDMRP) and DARPA defer to journal author guidelines. No taxonomy-specific requirement. |
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
UK funders sit further along the curve than US federal funders. UKRI, Wellcome, and CRUK have endorsed structured contributor attribution in narrative-CV and final-report contexts, though only a subset have explicit CRediT requirements in published policy.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) United Kingdom | National (umbrella) | Encouraged | 2024 | UKRI publishing-best-practice guidance encourages contributorship statements and references CRediT as a recognised taxonomy. The R4RI narrative CV format (mandatory since January 2024) asks applicants to describe contributions in CRediT-aligned language. |
Medical Research Council (MRC) United Kingdom | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits UKRI guidance. MRC team-science programme calls reference CRediT in their FAQs for multi-PI projects. |
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) United Kingdom | National | Recommended | 2024 | NIHR open-access policy and its complementary publication guidance recommend a CRediT statement on funded outputs. Authorship guidance explicitly cites CRediT as the preferred vocabulary. |
Wellcome Trust United Kingdom | Private foundation | Recommended | 2024 | Wellcome open-access policy recommends a contributorship statement using CRediT for funded papers. The Wellcome narrative CV uses CRediT-aligned categories. |
Cancer Research UK (CRUK) United Kingdom | Private foundation | Recommended | 2024 | CRUK publication policy recommends CRediT contributorship statements on funded outputs and aligns with COAlition S expectations. |
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) United Kingdom | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits UKRI guidance. No BBSRC-specific CRediT mandate beyond the umbrella position. |
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) United Kingdom | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits UKRI guidance. CRediT referenced in collaborative-grant reporting templates but not required. |
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) United Kingdom | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits UKRI guidance. ESRC has separately published contributor-recognition guidance for qualitative and mixed-methods work that complements CRediT. |
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) United Kingdom | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Inherits UKRI guidance. CRediT applicability in humanities outputs is acknowledged as evolving; CASRAI continues to develop discipline-specific examples. |
European Union
European Union
EU funders work through cOAlition S and Horizon Europe contract clauses. Contributorship guidance is encouraged at the umbrella level; some thematic programmes recommend CRediT explicitly in evaluation panels.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
European Research Council (ERC) European Union | Multinational | Encouraged | 2024 | ERC open-science guidance encourages structured contributorship statements. Not a contractual requirement for grant agreements. ERC narrative CV invites CRediT-style description. |
Horizon Europe / European Commission European Union | Multinational | Encouraged | 2024 | Horizon Europe grant agreements require open-access publication and FAIR data management. Contributorship taxonomies are encouraged through the Annotated Model Grant Agreement guidance but not contractually mandated. |
European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) European Union | Multinational | Encouraged | 2024 | EMBL open-science position encourages CRediT for collaborative outputs. EMBL-EBI separately operationalises CRediT in several of its curation workflows. |
Canada
Canada
The tri-agency framework (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC) defers to journal practice on contributorship. CRediT is widely used in CIHR-funded biomedical work because biomedical journals require it; the formal policy position remains encouraging rather than mandatory.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Canada | National | Encouraged | 2024 | CIHR Open Access Policy and tri-agency framework defer to journal practice. CRediT is referenced in CIHR team-grant FAQs but not mandated in policy text. |
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Canada | National | Silent | 2024 | NSERC financial-administration and reporting guidance is silent on contributorship taxonomies. |
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Canada | National | Silent | 2024 | SSHRC has not published a CRediT-specific position. Indigenous-research and partnership programmes have their own attribution guidance that runs in parallel. |
Genome Canada Canada | National | Encouraged | 2024 | Genome Canada data-sharing policy is aligned with international genomics-consortium practice; CRediT is referenced as accepted practice for consortia-authored papers. |
Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ) Canada (Québec) | Regional | Encouraged | 2024 | FRQ open-science action plan endorses contributorship statements and lists CRediT among recommended vocabularies. Not a contractual requirement. |
Australia
Australia
Australian funder policy emphasises responsible research conduct and authorship under the Australian Code; CRediT is referenced as acceptable practice but not specifically mandated.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia | National | Encouraged | 2024 | NHMRC defers to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and its authorship guidance. CRediT is referenced as one acceptable means of distinguishing contributions but not mandated. |
Australian Research Council (ARC) Australia | National | Encouraged | 2024 | ARC research-integrity guidance defers to the Australian Code. ARC Linkage and Centre-of-Excellence schemes informally reference CRediT in collaborative-attribution discussions. |
Asia
Asia
Major Asian funders are increasingly engaged with open-science frameworks. Formal CRediT mandates are uncommon at the funder level; adoption flows mostly through journal practice and through bilateral collaborations with European and US institutions.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Japan | National | Silent | 2024 | JSPS grants-in-aid guidance defers to MEXT research-integrity standards and journal practice. CRediT not explicitly addressed. |
Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) Japan | National | Silent | 2024 | AMED biomedical funding follows MEXT integrity guidance. No CRediT-specific mandate has been published in English. |
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) China | National | Silent | 2024 | NSFC publication and authorship guidance focuses on integrity, plagiarism, and duplicate publication. No CRediT-specific policy has been issued. |
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Singapore | National | Encouraged | 2024 | A*STAR research-integrity guidance aligns with international authorship norms and references CRediT among acceptable practices. |
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Republic of Korea | National | Silent | 2024 | NRF authorship guidance follows national research-integrity rules. CRediT is not specifically required or recommended at the policy level. |
Private foundations
Private foundations
Several large private funders have been ahead of national funders on contributor attribution. Some have effectively operationalised CRediT through their own grant-reporting templates and team-science programmes.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation United States | Private foundation | Recommended | 2024 | Gates Open Access policy recommends contributorship statements and is aligned with cOAlition S Plan S requirements. CRediT is the referenced vocabulary in foundation publishing guidance. |
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) United States | Private foundation | Recommended | 2024 | HHMI open-access policy recommends contributor statements on funded outputs. CRediT used in HHMI team-science reporting. |
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) United States | Private foundation | Recommended | 2024 | CZI open-access policy recommends explicit contributor attribution. CZI Science programme grants reference CRediT in their reporting templates. |
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation United States | Private foundation | Encouraged | 2024 | Sloan Foundation does not specify CRediT in policy text but funds projects that have advanced contributor-attribution infrastructure across the scholarly-communications stack. |
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation United States | Private foundation | Silent | 2024 | Mellon Foundation grant-reporting guidance does not address contributorship taxonomies. The foundation funds substantial humanities-attribution work parallel to CRediT. |
Simons Foundation United States | Private foundation | Silent | 2024 | Simons Foundation publication guidance defers to journal practice. No published CRediT-specific policy. |
International
International
International and inter-governmental funders generally defer to host-institution policy and journal practice. Adoption tends to follow rather than lead national-funder positions.
| Funder | Type | CRediT status | Updated | Note & policy link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
World Health Organization (WHO) research grants International | Multinational | Encouraged | 2024 | WHO publishing policy emphasises author transparency and conflict-of-interest disclosure. CRediT is referenced as accepted practice for WHO-funded outputs but not contractually required. |
How this list is maintained
CASRAI maintains this matrix as a public reference for research administrators, grant managers, and authors. Status changes when a funder publishes a new policy that explicitly addresses CRediT or structured contributor attribution. We re-verify the table at least annually, with interim updates when a major policy shifts.
We classify conservatively. A funder is only marked Required when the funder's own policy text explicitly says so; we do not infer requirements from individual programme calls. A funder is marked Recommended when policy text recommends CRediT or contributor statements by name. Encouraged covers funder blog posts, narrative-CV guidance, and programme-officer endorsement that does not appear in policy proper. Silent means we could not find a published stance.
This page is informational. Authors and administrators should always check the funder's current policy directly before submission. Policies change between editions of grant handbooks and we cannot guarantee real-time accuracy.
Next steps
- /credit/for-authors — guidance on writing a CRediT statement, with the 14 roles and worked examples.
- /for-authors/credit-statement — a ready-to-use CRediT statement template.
- casrai.org/credit — the canonical NISO-hosted CRediT standard.
- /for-authors/narrative-cv — the narrative CV formats that funders increasingly use, several of which adopt CRediT-aligned language.
Found an error or update?
If a funder has published a new CRediT or contributorship policy and this matrix has not yet caught up, email editorial@casrai.org with the policy URL and the publication date. We act on funder-policy corrections within one editorial cycle.
