IEEE, the world’s largest engineering professional association, defines authorship for its journals, conferences, magazines, and books through its own three-part ethical test, published separately across the IEEE Author Center Journals, Conferences, Magazines, and Books portals under near-identical “Ethical Requirements” language. It is a distinct policy from the ICMJE authorship criteria that govern most biomedical and clinical journals — the two overlap conceptually but differ in structure, and researchers who move between engineering/computer-science venues and biomedical ones will encounter both.
The IEEE authorship test: three criteria, all required
Per IEEE’s published ethical requirements, an individual qualifies as an author only if they meet all three of the following criteria — meeting one or two is explicitly not sufficient:
- Made “a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or experimental design, prototype development, and/or the analysis and interpretation of data” associated with the work.
- Contributed “to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content.”
- Approved “the final version of the article as accepted for publication, including references.”
Anyone who does not satisfy all three — for example, a lab head who supervised the project but did not review the manuscript, or a colleague who provided equipment or funding but had no intellectual role in the work — should not appear as an author. IEEE’s guidance directs that such contributors “may be included in the Acknowledgment section of the paper” instead, the same remedy ICMJE recommends for non-qualifying contributors.
How this differs from ICMJE’s four criteria
Researchers publishing across both engineering/CS and biomedical venues sometimes assume “authorship criteria” are interchangeable across publishers. They are related but not identical:
- Structure. ICMJE uses four criteria (see CASRAI’s full breakdown): substantial contribution to conception/design/data; drafting or critical revision; final approval; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. IEEE’s test folds the intellectual-contribution and drafting/revision elements into two of its three criteria, with final approval as the third.
- Explicit accountability clause. ICMJE’s fourth criterion — agreeing to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the whole work — is stated as a standalone, separately-satisfied requirement. IEEE does not phrase a matching standalone accountability criterion in the same explicit terms, though final approval of the accepted version functions similarly in practice.
- Governing scope. ICMJE criteria are a voluntary, widely-adopted standard originating in biomedical publishing and used well beyond ICMJE’s own member journals. IEEE’s criteria apply specifically to IEEE-published journals, conference proceedings, magazines, and books, as a condition IEEE itself sets for authors submitting to its venues.
In practice, a contribution profile that satisfies ICMJE will almost always satisfy IEEE’s test too, and vice versa — the two are close in substance. The distinction matters mainly for precision: when writing an authorship policy, training document, or dispute resolution for an engineering department, cite the standard the venue actually uses rather than assuming ICMJE language applies to an IEEE submission, or IEEE language to a biomedical one.
Corresponding author responsibilities under IEEE policy
IEEE’s ethical requirements place specific, named duties on the corresponding author (sometimes distinct from the submitting author), beyond simply being the point of contact:
- Including as co-authors “all persons appropriate and none inappropriate” — i.e., actively applying the three-part test rather than defaulting to a lab’s usual byline convention.
- Obtaining from all co-authors “their assent to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the article as accepted for publication.”
- Keeping all co-authors informed of the article’s status while under review, including sharing reviewer comments and, once published, a copy of the final version.
This places an affirmative duty on the corresponding author to actually confirm consent and final-version approval from every listed co-author — not merely to assume it — before submission and before acceptance.
Ghost, guest, and gift authorship under IEEE’s framework
IEEE’s published ethical-requirements language does not use the terms “ghost,” “guest,” or “gift” authorship explicitly (that vocabulary is COPE’s — see CASRAI’s Authorship term and COPE’s own flowcharts for the formal definitions). But the underlying prohibition is the same: IEEE’s three-criteria test is exhaustive, meaning a person who does not meet all three has no basis for being listed as an author regardless of seniority, funding role, or reciprocal favor — the guest/gift pattern — and a person who does meet all three but is omitted from the byline — the ghost pattern — is a violation IEEE would evaluate the same way it evaluates any authorship-criteria failure, through its research integrity and publishing-ethics process.
Changing the author list after submission
IEEE treats a change to the author list after initial submission as an exception rather than a routine administrative update. IEEE Author Center guidance frames post-submission authorship changes — adding, removing, or reordering authors — as requiring editor approval and, in practice, an explanation from the corresponding author along with confirmation from all affected parties (both the author being added/removed and the remaining co-authors) that they agree to the change. This is broadly consistent with how most major publishers, including ICMJE-aligned biomedical journals, handle late authorship changes: treat it as a flag worth scrutiny, not a formality, since late changes are one of the more common surface signals of an underlying authorship dispute.
Where to find the exact policy for your submission
Because IEEE publishes separate but substantively identical “Ethical Requirements” pages for journals, conferences, magazines, and books, always check the portal matching your actual submission type rather than assuming the journal version applies to a conference paper or vice versa — the core three-part test is consistent, but submission-specific mechanics (copyright forms, peer-review policies, post-publication correction procedures) are documented separately per venue on the IEEE Author Center.
Frequently asked questions
What are IEEE’s authorship criteria?
Three criteria, all required: significant intellectual contribution to the work’s development or analysis; contribution to drafting or critically revising the article; and approval of the final version accepted for publication.
Does IEEE follow ICMJE’s authorship criteria?
No — IEEE publishes its own authorship policy, distinct from but substantively close to ICMJE’s four criteria. IEEE governs its own journals, conferences, magazines, and books; ICMJE’s criteria are a separate standard most commonly adopted by biomedical and clinical journals.
Who is responsible for confirming authorship on an IEEE submission?
The corresponding author, who is explicitly tasked under IEEE policy with including all appropriate co-authors (and no inappropriate ones), obtaining each co-author’s assent and final-version approval, and keeping co-authors informed of the manuscript’s status.
Can authors be added or removed from an IEEE paper after submission?
Only as an exception requiring editor approval, not as a routine request — IEEE Author Center guidance treats post-submission authorship changes as needing justification and the agreement of all affected co-authors.
What happens to contributors who don’t meet IEEE’s authorship criteria?
They should be named in the article’s Acknowledgment section rather than listed as authors, the same remedy used under ICMJE and most other publisher authorship policies.
