CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: author contribution statement wiley

  • Author Contribution Statement: Wiley vs Elsevier

    Wiley and Elsevier both require a CRediT-based author contribution statement, but they format it differently: Wiley’s guidance lists the 14 roles alphabetically and actively encourages a “degree of contribution” qualifier (lead, equal, supporting), holding the submitting author responsible for accuracy, while Elsevier follows the original Brand et al. (2015) role order and assigns that responsibility to the corresponding author. Neither format is more “correct” — both map to the same underlying taxonomy — but the presentation, the responsible party, and what survives a manuscript transfer between the two publishers differ in ways authors and research-office staff need to know before submission.

    An author contribution statement is a short, structured section — published alongside the article, typically above the acknowledgements — that lists each named author against one or more standardised contributor roles. Most large publishers, including Wiley and Elsevier, populate this section using CRediT, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy. CASRAI originated the CRediT contributor role taxonomy in 2014, in a project that grew out of a 2012 workshop convened by Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust; the standard is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022.

    What is CRediT, and why do both publishers use it?

    CRediT is a standardised taxonomy of 14 contributor roles — from Conceptualization and Methodology through to Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, and Funding acquisition — used to describe what each named author actually did on a paper. It was designed to replace vague, unverifiable author-order conventions with a checklist that any reader can audit.

    Both Wiley and Elsevier adopted the same 14 roles, so the underlying vocabulary is identical across the two publishers. What differs is how each publisher instructs authors to present that vocabulary, and who signs off on its accuracy.

    How does Wiley format the contribution statement?

    Wiley’s author guidance presents the CRediT roles in alphabetical order (Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing) and states that the submitting author is responsible for ensuring that contributions of all authors are correct, with all co-authors expected to review and agree the assignments before submission.

    Wiley’s documentation goes a step further than a bare role list: it explicitly models a “degree of contribution” qualifier appended to each role, using the terms lead, equal, or supporting. Wiley’s own worked example reads:

    • Kerys Jones: Conceptualization (lead); writing – original draft (lead); formal analysis (lead); writing – review and editing (equal).
    • Elisha Roberto: Software (lead); writing – review and editing (equal).
    • Jinnie Wu: Conceptualization (supporting); writing – original draft (supporting); writing – review and editing (equal).

    Single-author papers are not exempt: Wiley asks solo authors to complete the same statement, capturing only the roles that genuinely apply, so the format stays consistent across single- and multi-author submissions.

    How does Elsevier format the contribution statement?

    Elsevier’s guidance reproduces the CRediT role table in the original taxonomy order published by Brand, Allen, Altman, Hlava and Scott in Learned Publishing (2015): Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. This is a functional grouping — design, execution, analysis, then writing and management — rather than an alphabetical list.

    Elsevier assigns accuracy responsibility to the corresponding author, not the submitting author, and states plainly that the statement “will appear above the acknowledgment section of the published paper.” Its published sample statement omits degree-of-contribution qualifiers entirely, listing roles by name only:

    • Zhang San: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software.
    • Priya Singh: Data curation, Writing – Original draft preparation.
    • Wang Wu: Visualization, Investigation.
    • Sun Qi: Writing – Reviewing and Editing.

    Elsevier also distributes a downloadable “Author contributions” Word template through several of its author-guidelines pages — a fill-in-the-blank form rather than prose guidance — which some Elsevier-published journals require alongside, or instead of, the free-text CRediT statement.

    Wiley vs Elsevier: side-by-side comparison

    The table below sets the two formats against each other on the points that matter most when preparing a submission.

    Feature Wiley Elsevier
    Role source CRediT, 14 roles, listed alphabetically in guidance CRediT, 14 roles, listed in Brand et al. (2015) taxonomy order
    Accuracy responsibility Submitting author Corresponding author
    Degree-of-contribution qualifier Actively modelled (lead / equal / supporting) Not shown in the official sample; used only where a journal opts in
    Single-author papers Explicitly addressed — same format, relevant roles only Not separately addressed in the core guidance
    Supplementary form Handled inline during submission via role-assignment fields Downloadable Word “Author contributions” template available on several journal pages
    Published placement With the final article; timing tied to submission or revision stage Explicitly “above the acknowledgment section”

    Neither publisher changes what CRediT itself means — a Methodology role describes the same activity at both houses. The difference is entirely in house style: how granular the statement looks on the page, and which named author is accountable if a dispute arises later.

    What happens to the statement when a manuscript transfers between publishers?

    Manuscript transfer services — cascading a rejected submission from one journal to another, sometimes across publishers — do not automatically preserve CRediT formatting. A statement written for Elsevier’s Brand-order role list with no degree qualifiers will typically need reformatting, not just re-pasting, if the paper moves to a Wiley title that expects lead/equal/supporting annotations, and vice versa.

    Authors should not assume a receiving journal’s production team will silently convert the format. In practice, the corresponding or submitting author (whichever role the destination publisher assigns) should re-check the contribution statement against the new publisher’s house style before resubmission, exactly as they would re-check reference formatting or word-count limits.

    Because the underlying 14 roles are identical across both publishers, no substantive re-attribution of work is required in a transfer — only the presentation layer (ordering, qualifiers, responsible-party framing) needs updating.

    Common questions about contribution statements

    What is an author contribution statement?

    An author contribution statement is a published section listing each author’s specific role in a paper, typically using CRediT’s standardised vocabulary. It appears near the acknowledgements and is meant to give readers and editors an auditable record of who did what, replacing informal or unstated authorship conventions.

    What are examples of author contributions?

    Common examples map directly to CRediT roles: Conceptualization (designing the study), Investigation (running experiments or collecting data), Formal Analysis (statistical work), Writing – Original Draft, and Funding Acquisition. A single author may hold several roles at once.

    What is an author contribution declaration?

    An author contribution declaration is another term for the same disclosure — a formal, publisher-required statement in which authors declare their individual roles. Some journals, including several Elsevier titles, request it as a signed downloadable form rather than free text embedded in the manuscript.

    What is a contribution statement example?

    A typical example reads: “A.B. conceived the study and developed the theory; C.D. performed the computations and verified the analytical methods; all authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.” Wiley’s and Elsevier’s own published samples follow this pattern, differing mainly in whether a lead/equal/supporting qualifier is attached to each role.

    What this means for authors and research offices

    Research-office staff supporting multi-author, multi-institution teams should treat the contribution statement as a publisher-specific formatting task, not a one-time write-once document. Institutional repositories and CRIS systems that harvest CRediT data for REF-style reporting or funder compliance benefit from capturing roles in the neutral taxonomy form — independent of either publisher’s presentation layer — so the underlying data survives regardless of where a paper is eventually placed.

    For corresponding and submitting authors alike, the practical rule is simple: confirm which party each publisher holds accountable, check whether degree-of-contribution qualifiers are expected, and re-verify the statement’s ordering and format every time a manuscript changes publisher — including after a transfer or a resubmission following rejection.

  • Author Contribution Statement: Elsevier vs Wiley vs Springer

    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?

    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.