Document Feedback - Review and Comment
Step 1 of 4: Comment on Document
How to make a comment?
1. Use this to open a comment box for your chosen Section, Part, Heading or clause.
2. Type your feedback into the comments box and then click "save comment" button located in the lower-right of the comment box.
3. Do not open more than one comment box at the same time.
4. When you have finished making comments proceed to the next stage by clicking on the "Continue to Step 2" button at the very bottom of this page.
Important Information
During the comment process you are connected to a database. Like internet banking, the session that connects you to the database may time-out due to inactivity. If you do not have JavaScript running you will recieve a message to advise you of the length of time before the time-out. If you have JavaScript enabled, the time-out is lengthy and should not cause difficulty, however you should note the following tips to avoid losing your comments or corrupting your entries:
-
DO NOT jump between web pages/applications while logging comments.
-
DO NOT log comments for more than one document at a time. Complete and submit all comments for one document before commenting on another.
-
DO NOT leave your submission half way through. If you need to take a break, submit your current set of comments. The system will email you a copy of your comments so you can identify where you were up to and add to them later.
-
DO NOT exit from the interface until you have completed all three stages of the submission process.
(1) Authorship of a (2) This guideline supports the principles articulated in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (ACRCR) and the (3) The guideline details the criteria and protocols for acknowledging authorship and seeks to recognise the restrictions associated with commercial publication. (4) The guideline also details pathways for resolving any conflict that may arise as a result of the attribution of authorship. (5) As detailed in the ACRCR, authorship must be based on substantial scholarly contribution in a combination of the following: (6) Research higher degree (7) Examples of contributions that are not considered to meet the criteria for authorship are detailed in Clause 5.5 of the ACRCR. (8) Contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship may need to be acknowledged in line with discipline practice on a discretionary basis, and the basis for the exercise of the discretion must be clearly documented. (9) A person who qualifies as an author can only be included or excluded as an author with their written permission, unless clause 15 applies. (10) The researcher must also provide detail of their contribution, as relates to the criteria listed in clause 5. (11) Permission may be indicated by email in cases where it is not practical to obtain signed notification of consent. (12) Where (13) Where the publication process includes documentation that would duplicate the information provided on the Statement of Authorship and Location of Data Form, it will not be necessary to complete the form as well. In these circumstances the executive author will remain responsible for ensuring that such documentation is stored with the data underpinning a (14) All notifications of consent must be retained by the executive author. (15) If an author has not provided permission because they are deceased or, despite reasonable efforts, cannot be contacted, the publication can proceed, provided there is no basis to believe that this person would have objected. (16) Where another acknowledgment of contribution is given in line with clause 8, permission must also be obtained from the contributor prior to publication. (17) Collaborating researchers must agree on their status as an author of any publication resulting from (18) Where a work has multiple authors, an executive author should be determined prior to the preparation of a manuscript. (19) The executive author should be determined by agreement with collaborating researchers and/or in line with discipline conventions. (20) Where an author's position in an authorship list has significance, positioning in the list should be determined by agreement with collaborating researchers and with consideration of: (21) Where agreement on acknowledgement, attribution or ordering of authorship is not achieved, collaborating authors and other stakeholders must reconsider the principles and criteria, and take all reasonable steps to try to resolve the matter themselves or with assistance from the relevant Faculty Advisor in Research Integrity and/or Head of School. (22) Where agreement cannot be achieved with guidance from the relevant Head of School the matter may be referred to the Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation for consideration of the principles, criteria and contributions of the researchers, as well as any other relevant facts of the matter in making a determination. (23) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) will receive and review any requests for an appeal of the Pro Vice-Chancellor's determination. (24) Researchers must offer authorship to all those - including higher degree by research (25) Researchers must ensure that all those who have contributed to the (26) Researchers are responsible for assigning authorship in accordance with this guideline and the principles of authorship identified in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, and the (27) Researchers are responsible for maintaining a knowledge of and applying any relevant discipline conventions. (28) The executive author is responsible for recording and retaining records regarding the attribution of authorship, the management of the (29) Researchers are responsible for attempting to resolve and/or co-operate in any process undertaken to resolve a dispute regarding authorship. (30) Faculty Advisors in Research Integrity and Heads of School are responsible for providing advice and assisting collaborating researchers to resolve disputes regarding authorship. (31) The Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Innovation is responsible for managing disputes regarding authorship or acknowledgement where agreement cannot be reached by the collaborating researchers with the assistance of the relevant Head of School. (32) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) is responsible for reviewing any requests for appeal.Research Authorship Guideline
Section 1 - Introduction
This guideline extends to web-based publications.Section 2 - Criteria for Authorship
Section 3 - Consent and Statement of Authorship
Section 4 - Agreement of Authorship
Top of PageSection 5 - Disputes about Authorship and Acknowledgment
Section 6 - Roles and Responsibilities