Elsevier makes a CRediT author contribution statement mandatory for journals on its Editorial Manager system, Wiley widely requires a structured “Author Contribution” section built on the same 14-role taxonomy, and Springer Nature — including Scientific Reports — asks for a statement of responsibility that is often free text rather than the full CRediT structure. The result is that the same collaboration can be documented three different ways depending purely on where it is submitted.
An author contribution statement elsevier-style disclosure is a short, structured or narrative section, published alongside a journal article, that specifies exactly what each named author did — using either the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) or free-text prose. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014; the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, and it is this NISO-stewarded version, not any single publisher’s implementation, that defines the 14 canonical roles.
- Is a CRediT statement mandatory at Elsevier?
- How does Wiley handle author contribution statements?
- What does Springer Nature, including Scientific Reports, require?
- Elsevier vs Wiley vs Springer: a side-by-side comparison
- Common questions about author contribution statements
- What the inconsistency means for multi-journal authors
- Where contribution statement standardisation is headed
Is a CRediT statement mandatory at Elsevier?
Elsevier requires a CRediT author statement for every submission to journals running on its Editorial Manager system. The corresponding author selects the applicable roles for each named author from Elsevier’s published list of 14 categories — Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing (Original Draft and Review & Editing), Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, and Funding acquisition.
The statement is entered during submission, can be revised through peer review, and is published above the acknowledgments section once the article is accepted. Elsevier’s own guidance is explicit that CRediT does not alter a journal’s authorship criteria — it documents contribution, not eligibility for authorship.
How does Wiley handle author contribution statements?
Wiley has widely adopted CRediT across its portfolio, requiring many journals to publish a dedicated Author Contribution section built on the same taxonomy. As with Elsevier, the submitting author enters roles on behalf of all co-authors, who are expected to have reviewed and agreed their listed roles before submission.
Wiley’s author guidance also surfaces the taxonomy’s optional degree-of-contribution qualifiers — lead, equal, or supporting — allowing authors to signal relative weighting within a shared role rather than a flat checkbox. Exact formatting still varies by individual journal, since Wiley operates a federated set of editorial policies rather than one house style.
What does Springer Nature, including Scientific Reports, require?
Springer Nature’s editorial policy requires authors to include “a statement of responsibility… that specifies the contribution of every author,” but it does not universally mandate the 14-role CRediT structure the way Elsevier’s Editorial Manager workflow does. Many journals accept a narrative contribution statement — full sentences describing who conceived the study, collected data, or drafted the manuscript — rather than a checklist of standardised roles.
Scientific Reports, a Springer Nature journal, is more prescriptive within that flexible framework: its submission guidelines state authors “must supply an Author Contribution Statement,” referencing the wider Nature Portfolio authorship policy rather than a bespoke CRediT interface. This makes Springer Nature the most heterogeneous of the three publishers — requirement is consistent, but format is journal-dependent.
Elsevier vs Wiley vs Springer: a side-by-side comparison
The table below summarises where each publisher sits on mandate, structure, and degree-of-contribution support.
| Publisher | CRediT status | Format | Degree-of-contribution tags |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elsevier | Mandatory on Editorial Manager journals | Structured — select from 14 CRediT roles | Not part of the standard submission form |
| Wiley | Widely required across journals | Dedicated “Author Contribution” section, CRediT-based | Yes — lead / equal / supporting |
| Springer Nature (incl. Scientific Reports) | Statement required; full CRediT taxonomy not universal | Structured or narrative free text, by journal | Inconsistent — varies by title |
The common thread is that all three publishers trace their statements back to the same source taxonomy, standardised as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, but each has built a different submission workflow on top of it.
Common questions about author contribution statements
What is a contribution statement example?
A typical example reads: “A. Smith: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft. B. Jones: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization.” This CRediT-style format names each author once per role, drawing directly from the 14 standardised categories rather than free-form prose.
What are the criteria for author contribution?
Publishers generally look to ICMJE’s authorship criteria: substantial contribution to conception or design, or data acquisition/analysis/interpretation; drafting or critically revising the work; final approval of the version published; and agreement to be accountable for accuracy and integrity.
What are author contributions?
Author contributions are the specific, individually attributed tasks — such as study design, data analysis, or manuscript drafting — that each named author performed on a published work. They are distinct from authorship eligibility itself, which is governed separately by each journal’s authorship policy.
What should substantial contributions include to be credited as an author?
Per the Council of Science Editors, a substantial contribution covers conception or design of the work, OR acquisition/analysis/interpretation of data, OR drafting/substantive revision, combined with final approval of the submitted (and any revised) version and accountability for its accuracy.
What the inconsistency means for multi-journal authors
Researchers who submit to more than one of these three publishers in a given year — common in fields like biomedicine or materials science — must track three separate conventions rather than one. That has practical consequences:
- Templates are not interchangeable: an Elsevier CRediT selection list cannot simply be pasted into a Springer Nature narrative-format submission without rewriting.
- Degree-of-contribution nuance (lead/equal/supporting) may be lost or gained depending on which publisher’s form an author uses, even for an identical collaboration.
- Institutional research offices compiling contribution evidence for tenure, promotion, or funder reporting face inconsistent source data across a researcher’s output.
For research administrators, the practical fix is to standardise internally on the full CRediT taxonomy — matching the CRediT contributor roles as stewarded under ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 — regardless of which publisher’s native format a given article ultimately uses, then map down to each journal’s submission requirements at the point of manuscript preparation.
Where contribution statement standardisation is headed
The gap between Elsevier’s mandatory structured workflow and Springer Nature’s narrative flexibility is unlikely to close through publisher policy alone. NISO’s stewardship of ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 provides the shared reference point, but enforcement remains a per-journal editorial decision. Authors and institutions publishing across multiple houses gain the most by treating CRediT as their internal default and adapting output format — structured selection versus narrative sentence — to each publisher’s submission system, rather than the reverse.
Leave a Reply