Authorship Policy

While authorship is decided on an individual basis for each paper (depending on contribution), typically, authorship is arranged in groups. We hope the GIANT investigators will forgive us for adopting their authorship guidelines. 

  1. A group of 6 or fewer junior investigators who strongly led the efforts, usually starred to denote equal contribution, followed by additional junior investigators who played key, central roles.
  2. In alphabetical order, junior investigators who had substantial individual contributions but not as much as those in Group 1. Typically, these might be lead analysts or other junior investigators who made a sizable contribution such as GWA analyses performed specifically for the paper.
  3. In alphabetical order, junior investigators who had notable individual contributions but not as much as those in Groups 1 or 2. Typically, these might be lead analysts for replication cohorts, providing results for a group of top hits.
  4. In alphabetical order, junior and senior investigators who had contributions worthy of authorship (participating in analysis, phenotype collection, genotyping, oversight of cohorts, etc. that was specific to the paper) but not as much as those in the other groups.
  5. In alphabetical order, senior investigators who had contributions worthy of authorship and contributed more than those in group 4. Typically, these might be a lead PI of a participating cohort who did not participate as strongly in GSCAN activities as those in group 6.
  6. In alphabetical order, senior investigators who participated strongly in GSCAN activities but did not strongly lead/oversee the writing and/or analysis for the paper. Typically, these might be leaders of key GSCAN activities.
  7. The senior investigators who strongly led/oversaw the writing and/or analysis of the paper, including a subset that are co-corresponding authors (usually 6 or fewer).