Lab Expectations for the VPNL

Lab Vision and Research Goals
Code of Conduct
Lab Culture
Role Related Responsibilities
Peer Mentorship
Authorship

*Last updated March 2026

1. Lab vision & Research Goals

The goal of the Vision and Perception Neuroscience Lab is to advance understanding of the neural, computational, and behavioral aspects of human high-level vision and its development as well as educate the next generation of scientists in the field.

Our lab uses a multidisciplinary approach to study human high level visual cortex including a multitude of imaging methods, computational approaches, and behavioral methods. Researchers in the lab typically learn more than one experimental method and are expected to learn and develop computational tools for their research. While each student and postdoc will lead their own project, often researchers in the lab work collaboratively to acquire and analyze multiple kinds of data related to a shared project. Therefore, it is critical for me to foster teamwork as well as a collaborative and friendly environment in the lab where we help each other learn and conduct research.

It is important for me to educate scientists to be ethical, rigorous, detail oriented, independent, computationally savvy, theoretically minded, scholarly, creative, and moral. As you develop as scientists, I hope that you will learn to seek to address key questions that are not only interesting, but also have societal impact. It is also paramount to me to have open scientific discourse in the lab, as you may not always agree with me, other lab members, or other researchers in the field. In fact, I learn a lot from you, and I am always curious to hear new ideas, methods, and directions.

A critical aspect of lab conduct is reproducible and open science. Therefore, all the data and code in the lab are accessible to all lab researchers, and we publish the code and data related to all figures with the publication of manuscripts in peer reviewed journals. We also typically upload our manuscripts to preprint servers when we submit them to peer reviewed journals.

The road to success is difficult and full of obstacles. I hope you will grow to be leaders with integrity, grit, and perseverance, who are also socially cognizant, responsible, and considerate.

Thanks,

Kalanit

3. Code of conduct

To accomplish our scientific goals, it is important that we set expectations for interpersonal behavior. The following expectations are put in place to ensure that all lab members feel safe and respected in our lab community.

Essential policies

Lab members are expected to maintain a mutually comfortable work environment for all members. Particular attention should be paid to maintaining a healthy working relationship between members of different ages and/or hierarchical ranks.

The VPNL does not tolerate harassment, discrimination, or misconduct in the lab. As a lab, we will not enable or ignore these offenses, and offenders will face disciplinary consequences for such behavior, up to and including expulsion from the lab and University.

Discrimination: The lab will not tolerate any discrimination or misconduct on the basis of race, beliefs, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, physical ability, nationality, or religion. This includes but is not limited to: the use of slurs or jokes, offensive written or verbal conduct, or any discrimination with regards to employment or educational opportunities based on these aspects of identity. We echo Stanford’s anti-discrimination policy here.
Sexual harassment: The lab shares in Stanford’s commitment to provide a place of work and study free of gender-based violence, which includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic and dating violence, stalking, harassment based on gender identity, expression or sexual orientation, and other forms of gender-based harrassment. Where such sexual misconduct occurs, the University and the lab will act to stop the misconduct, prevent its recurrence, and discipline and/or take other appropriate action against those responsible (official university policy here). We expect everyone to be versed in the broad definition of sexual harassment, and attend regular sexual harassment training as required by the University.
Scientific misconduct: The lab will not tolerate scientific misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Likewise, research methods should maintain the ethical standards of our field, causing no harm to participants. Research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data. Stanford’s policies and consequences for research misconduct are outlined here.

Core set of norms and ground rules

A core set of norms to guide behavior in the lab is:

Treat each other with kindness and respect, be mindful of our positionality: Strive for equitable respect of opinions, experiences and feedback. People in positions of power should not be assumed to have the most valid opinions on the topic. Value all personal experience and knowledge.
Practice active communication and listening: None of us have the ability to read each other’s minds. Express feelings (positive and negative) and thoughts calmly, honestly and respectfully using “I” statements (e.g. “I feel hurt when you criticize me.”, “I think you are being overly critical of me”). Listen to and respect the feelings and needs of others. Needs and opinions will inevitably conflict between parties. When there is disagreement, look for compromise and opportunity for reconciliation.
When you make a mistake, apologize and grow from the experience: Anyone can make mistakes; mistakes can and will happen. What matters more is acknowledging and taking ownership of our mistakes through sincere apologies. When apologizing, openly commit yourself to better behavior, and move on non-judgmentally.
Practice forgiveness when forgiveness has been earned: Everyone in this space is learning and growing. We strive to foster a culture of forgiveness when lab members take accountability and earn forgiveness for their actions. At the same time, everyone has agency to determine when forgiveness is warranted.
We strive to generate a lab culture of genuine support and active mentorship.

4. Lab Culture

a. Confidentiality

Our goal is to safeguard privacy and confidentiality. Assume that personal discussions and files regarding sensitive topics including, but not limited to, those listed below will be confidential unless explicit consent is provided: (i) Physical and mental health (ii) Financial difficulties (iii) Academic challenges.

Apart from this, lab members should respect requests for confidentiality in discussions; sensitive or personal information should not be shared without consent or gossiped about. Be mindful of your positionality in the lab when asking for consent to share and in how you share sensitive information. Additionally, the lab does not tolerate retaliation based on information shared or issues raised around sensitive topics. We want lab members to feel comfortable raising sensitive issues, and to know that doing so will not harm their scientific or personal standing in the lab. If a lab member feels or notices retaliatory behavior, they will bring it to Kalanit or another appropriate authority.

A notable exception to this is that some lab members are state-mandated reporters of issues around mistreatment of minors. These people are defined as “any university employee who comes into contact with children on a regular basis, or who supervises those who do” (see this link or this checklist), for example the PI and people working with someone under 18 in developmental studies.
Lab members seeking confidential conversations or information about sensitive issues can further consult resources listed in the section above; in particular, https://harass.stanford.edu/help/resources contains confidentiality information for many university-wide resources, e.g. when conversations can be anonymous, confidential, or private to the extent possible.
These resources may also be helpful if someone shares information with you in confidence that indicates intent to harm themselves or others, or experience of harm. We acknowledge that these are incredibly difficult situations to navigate, including deciding if, when, and to whom to report information that seems troubling. Seeking professional advice is encouraged, and Stanford provides several resources for confidential conversations (not reported to law enforcement or Title IX) to help you, including Vaden CST, the Faculty/Staff Help Center, and the SARA/SHARE office. A comprehensive guide to aiding students or labmates experiencing distress can be found at https://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/redfolder.

b. Officemates & office culture

The Department’s space committee allocates graduate students offices, which can be shared with graduate students outside the lab as well as other programs (e.g., Neurosciences program). Postdocs and research staff use lab rooms, but can be shared with other labs as well.

Considerate and supportive behavior is important within a shared office, as you are likely to spend a substantial part of your day with your office mate(s). Officemates should be mindful of each other's needs and communicate directly and openly about their preferred working environment. Our experience is that good communication is key for a good office environment, so if something isn’t working, a conversation may be a good starting point. Below we enclose examples of respectful code of conduct that should be seen as an initial guideline which can be modified by office mates in mutual agreement.

Check with your office mate(s) whether it is ok to have a meeting in the shared office.
Check with your office mate(s) before bringing guests to the office, e.g. friend/classmate/colleague who wishes to work in the office even though it is not their assigned space.
We are eager to help each other in the lab, but at the same time it is important to be mindful of your officemate(s) time. As such, we recommend spending a little bit of time working on a problem on your own and/or collecting questions for a convenient time to meet with others.
Use headphones if you listen to music.
Step outside for (longer) phone conversations.
Ask before borrowing items and remember to return them.
Be respectful of other people's space and cleanliness preferences.
Check with your office mate(s) if it is ok to bring your pet to the office.
Additional furniture should be agreed upon by all office mate(s).
Out of consideration for your office mate(s), please stay home when you are sick. The lab is well equipped for remote work, if needed.

c. Where to go when personal or lab issues arise?

Your experience in the lab is important. While doing science can be hard, we strive for everyone in the lab to have a positive learning experience where they feel respected and valued. If you experience tension or a conflict in the lab or you feel uncomfortable about a certain situation, but don’t feel like you can directly address your concerns with the person/people in question; there are people at different levels who you can reach out to ask for advice, a second opinion, or questions. The first level is people inside the lab (Lab-Level), second is outside the lab (see Department-Level), or if you would rather talk to people outside the department, you can also consider going through channels listed at the University-Level. You can find people/institutions and their description for each level below.In general, it is important that you take care of your physical and mental health and overall well-being, so don’t hesitate to find additional support and help at wellness resources or counseling services mentioned below.

Lab-Level: As the director of the lab, Kalanit is available to discuss any arising issue. She will listen and do her best to help you find a solution, or guide you to needed help. Besides Kalanit, you can also consider talking to senior lab members or recent lab alumni. They can lend a listening ear, offer advice or perspective, or help find a solution.
Department and University Level Resources

5. Role Related Responsibilities

The mission of our lab is to train you to be the next generation of leading scientists. To be active researchers in cognitive neuroscience and vision science today requires many skills ranging from scholarly knowledge of the field, ability to design, perform, analyze and theorize about empirical data and a strong computational foundation including linear algebra, statistics, advance computational methods including optimization, modeling, and deep neural networks. Additionally, since we are a neuroimaging lab there are many opportunities to master multiple experimental methods including functional MRI, anatomical & quantitative MRI, and diffusion MRI as well as histology techniques together with our collaborators. Different researchers in the lab will work on unique projects that require specific skills and present various opportunities. However, several of the large projects are collaborative and may involve multiple researchers working on different parts of the project, which sets the basis of the general expectations listed below. Below we list expectations and responsibilities of individual roles in the lab. Additionally, for graduate students and postdocs who are expected to become experts in the field and develop a unique line of original research, there are specific expectations which are linked below.

a. Principal Investigator

My main mission is to support you scientifically, emotionally, and financially as we work together to do the excellent and cutting edge scientific research

Give you feedback on a timely basis, including feedback on your project ideas and implementation, analyses and code, results, manuscripts and figures, presentations and talks, conference posters, grants.
Be available in person and via email on a regular basis, including regular meetings to discuss your research (and anything else you’d like to discuss).
Give my perspective on where the lab is going, where the field is going, and advice about thriving in academia.
Support your career development by introducing you to other researchers in the field, promoting your work at talks, writing recommendation letters for you, and letting you attend conferences as often as finances permit.
Help you prepare for the next step of your career, whether it’s a postdoc, a faculty job, or a job outside of academia.
Care for your emotional and physical well-being, and prioritize that above all else.
Letters of recommendation. Letters of recommendations are often required for the next stage of your career. When I write a recommendation letter, it is personal, it describes the work you did in the lab, and highlights your contributions and strengths. So I won’t be able to write about your work in the lab unless you have worked a substantial amount of time in the lab. Because it takes me time to write these letters, I expect you to surface a discussion about a recommendation letter as soon as you know you will need it (a good rule of thumb is a month's notice).

b. Everyone

Teamwork: We try to help each other where we can. For example, we often talk through analyses, read each other’s writing for grant proposals, and serve as participants in each other’s experiments. If there is something that you need help with, ask! We have all received help from lab members in the past and are eager to pay it forward. We also respect each other’s time, so if you are unable to help or do not have the capacity to do so at a given moment, it is perfectly fine to decline.
Work hours and availability: Given that we are working in a University, work hours tend to be flexible. However, we expect people to be working during standard hours and available for 8 hours per day during the interval between 9 - 7pm (with lunch/coffee breaks in between), so there is overlap in working hours between people in the lab. While some people might reach out to you during the weekend or holidays, there is no expectation you have to work weekends/holidays unless this is explicitly asked beforehand or if something urgent, like a deadline or collecting data for a time sensitive study.
Work-life balance
1. Vacation. If you want to go on vacation, please discuss this with Kalanit in advance (typically 2 weeks) and check that the timing is reasonable and will not disrupt a planned activity in the lab. People take vacation throughout the year, however, it is important to plan travel around data collection. Once approved, if you are away or on vacation please update the lab calendar (kgs-travel) to indicate the days that you are out of the lab so that other lab members know that you are unavailable during your vacation time. Usually people go on vacation for 2 weeks during winter break for the winter closure.
2. Time off for health reasons. You are entitled to medical leave and you can keep confidentiality on the reason. For extended leave, you may need to take a leave of absence. In general, please do not come into the lab if you are sick (contagious). We have remote work options if you are feeling well enough to work.
3. (Planning) Family life. In this lab, we believe it is important to take parental leave. Since funding varies for different positions/projects, check with Kalanit and she will work with you on a case-by-case basis to figure out funding. You will not be penalized for wanting to take a leave of absence. Don’t forget to check Stanford policy for postdoc parental leave and graduate student parental leave, and look into potential visa issues if you are an international lab member.
Deadlines: If there is an upcoming deadline (e.g., data collection, grant application, etc.) this will be communicated to lab members so that they can plan their work schedule accordingly.
Unexpected deadlines: Even though we try to plan things ahead, there will be times when there will be an unexpected deadline. For example, when proofs of a paper come back and have to return in 48 hours, you are expected to respond to this request. This might violate your work-life balance. Especially in those circumstances, communication is key.
Presenting and participating in lab meetings: We would love to hear about your progress and work in progress at least once or twice a year. Lab meetings are a great opportunity to get feedback on ongoing work from a supportive and constructive group. While it’s never “too early” to present ongoing work, lab meetings can also be an opportunity to present relevant papers and guide discussions (although students/postdocs may consider alternative venues, such as Vision Brunch, for this kind of presentation as well). Presentations can include: designing a new experiment, sharing preliminary findings, presenting a fully fleshed out project as you are writing your manuscript, preparing for a presentation. Natural presentation points are in preparations for (i) conferences (ii) committee meetings, (iii) broader talks (vision brunch, frisem, Mind, Brain, Computation, and Technology (MBCT)), (iv) job talks or (v) interviews.
Guidelines for lab meetings: To make most of your presentation in lab meetings, it can be helpful to communicate at the beginning of the meeting both specific topics you would like to receive feedback on, as well as the level of feedback you are looking for. Given that our lab covers a broad range of topics and methods, encourage foundational questions. Aspects of your research that are obvious to you, may be completely new to others. When listening to a presentation make sure to communicate your feedback in a constructive and supportive manner. Our goal is to learn and to move the discussion forward.
Attending seminars: Attend and participate in Vision Brunch, FriSem, and Colloquium. These are excellent opportunities to learn and share your work. Vision Brunch and Frisem are especially good platforms to get constructive feedback on your research, prepare for conferences and job talks. Take advantage of the seminars and colloquia around campus for example the Mind, Brain, Computation, and Technology (MBCT) series. Stanford is an amazing place and participating in seminars and an opportunity to enhance your scholarly knowledge, breadth, your visibility in the field & enable you to meet people in the field. Usually, when there is a visitor there are opportunities to meet them if (i) you host them (ii) participate in trainee lunches, etc.
Scanning off-hours. Access to the MRI scanner and our participants’ availability tends to be in the evenings, nights, and weekends. There is an expectation that you will conduct MRI and behavioral experiments in these hours. With respect to scanning during the night or weekend, we usually give flexibility to start later or take a day off instead of weekend scanning sessions so they are within the week hours. Arranging your schedule should be coordinated with Kalanit.
Reading + sharing literature. It is important to stay up-to-date on relevant literature in the field. We often share new papers in the #literature channel on Slack. Please join & participate!
Communications. Most of our electronic communications are via email or Slack. Slack is more informal, more social, and has multiple channels. Email is the best way to reach Kalanit.
1. Slack. The lab has several slack channels ranging from computing problems, to antiracism, to literature to happy hour; please join them and participate.
2. Scheduling. The lab has multiple google calendars. The lab calendars are used to (i) schedule lab rooms (e.g. eye tracking lab), (ii) notify and schedule events that are relevant to the lab (e.g. lab meetings, vision brunch, frisem), (iii) notify absence (e.g. vacations). In addition, we have google calendars for specific projects that include a subset of lab members.
Coding: Everyone is expected to learn to code if they are working in research in the lab for more than 2 quarters. Languages we use are Matlab, Python, and R. You are also expected to publish your code with any published manuscripts.
1. When publishing your code, consider adding a CITATION.cff file to your GitHub repository to allow others to easily cite the code or corresponding paper. Details about citation files can be found here.
2. You may choose to create a DOI (digital object identifier) for the code in your GitHub repository at the time it is released. Zenodo can be used to automatically generate a DOI for every release of the GitHub code. See the guide Making Your Code Citable for detailed instructions.
Onboarding new members. To get up to speed, new members should check out our wiki with important information and lab resources. You can ask the lab manager for login credentials. Other informative sections are those on computing, IT, and human subjects. Note that before you can start running experiments you will need to undergo several training sessions (e.g. human subjects and CNI training). An independent important resource is our VPNL Github repository, with code for specific experiments and analyses.

c. Mentorship and expectations by your role in the lab

Because there are specific aspects of our training mission pertaining to different roles, we have developed pages with specific information and expectations for each group in these links:

6. Peer Mentorship

Mentoring is a key component in academia. It plays an important role in how we experience doing science and how we develop our own identity as a scientist. When you start your science training, you start as a mentee. But as you advance, it is likely you may take additional roles as a mentor.

Mentorship is a two-way street. Both mentors and mentees play a role in shaping this relationship and learn from each other. We strive to have open and clear communications, such that mentees identify and voice what they need so the mentor can help mentees reach these goals and mentors are explicit about their expectations and goals they have in mind for the project. When you are working on a project together make sure to be transparent about the type and scope of the proposed project.

In this lab, you are not required to become a mentor. But if you would like to take on this experience, there are multiple opportunities to take on a mentee (typically an undergraduate RA). However, being a mentor comes with responsibilities: You will need time to check in with your mentee on a regular basis and have the bandwidth to guide them through the project. If you don’t have this bandwidth, that’s ok, but then you should wait until a time when you do. If something unexpected comes up and you can no longer be a mentor, make sure to communicate this with your mentee and the PI and find someone in the lab who can take over this mentorship.

For undergrad RAs, doing research in the lab is a way to explore what it is like to do science. There are many points of entry. Typically students will either send an email to Kalanit and express interest in working in this lab, following a course they took in psychology/neuroscience/CS, want to pursue an honors thesis, or respond to one of our advertisements (e.g., work study/SUPA). When Kalanit gets such emails, she forwards them to the lab to see if someone is interested and has the bandwidth. In terms of projects, they can either be a smaller, well-defined part of your own project or they can be separate from the projects you are doing. If you don’t know how to break your project into a smaller piece, Kalanit is happy to help with this.

7. Authorship

a. Guiding principles and historical practices

Authorship should reflect the scientific contributions of researchers on the project. The topic of authorship is important and warrants transparency and discussion. This is because it is key in determining one’s scientific impact and is used to evaluate scientists at different points of their careers. Practices of determining authorship vary not only across scientific disciplines, but also within fields, as different labs can have their own idiosyncratic principles. Especially for junior researchers or those contributing to a project for the first time, authorship practices can feel implicit. Additionally, projects are becoming increasingly more elaborate and involve multi-lab collaborations, enhancing the chance of misaligned expectations. The goal of this section is to be transparent about our lab’s practices and to facilitate discussions about authorship. By making the implicit explicit, we aim to diminish disappointment or conflict around authorship.

In our field (neuroscience/psychology) teamwork is inevitable. This means that multiple researchers contribute to a study. It is understood that the first author is the leader of the project. That is, they have done the majority of the work. As such, first authorships are weighted more heavily compared to middle authorships in evaluations. In papers with more than three authors, we list each author’s contributions in a separate section. This allows transparent documentation of each researcher’s specific contributions together with the publication.

In our lab, projects are usually led by a postdoc or graduate student. At the beginning of the project we have a discussion about the scope of the project. There is also a discussion about who else is involved in the study. For example, an RA may be a key person in the project as they participate in data collection and analysis. We suggest documenting this understanding in writing (see section on Project Contribution Spreadsheet).

As projects change over time, and the research team as well as the role of individual researchers can also change during the course of a study, authorship (and the order of listed authors) is not set in stone. So, authorship may be evaluated and discussed at different time points during the course of a study. Typical time points in which authorship should be discussed is presentation of the research in conferences, and writing manuscripts. Below are guidelines, criteria, and examples to navigate the process of determining authorship. Nonetheless, you have agency in surfacing any questions or changes about authorship during the study and writing of manuscripts.

b. Defining criteria for authorship

Because projects can vary in many aspects (scope, number of subjects, methods, etc.), it is challenging to come up with a single definition of what grants authorship. Nevertheless, we outline a set of guidelines that set a foundation for determining authorship for our lab. The main criterion for becoming an author is making a significant contribution to the project. This can have many forms, for example: intellectual, methodological, or theoretical.
When deciding on an author list, we ask ourselves: what was the contribution of each person to the project? Would the project be where it is now without this contribution? For example, drawing ROIs or segmenting brains on a few participants over the course of a few weeks is typically not sufficient. But if you draw all the ROIs, which is a necessary first step for determining the response of a region presented in the results—that is a key contribution. Another example is if you develop/apply a crucial piece of software that is necessary for the analysis pipeline. A rule of thumb is that your engagement in the study has been deep so you are able to describe the hypothesis, experiment, and results. Typically, to achieve this engagement contributors have a long-term involvement and investment in the project (i.e., more than a summer). For undergraduate RAs, a successful way to achieve this is to engage in long term research via summer internships and doing an honors thesis in the lab.
In the case of longitudinal projects, where datasets are often used in multiple papers, our norm is to honor those significantly involved in data collection with authorship on at least one paper (typically with the first publication that used the data). If the dataset is re-analyzed or used again in a different publication, we either acknowledge the contribution of those collecting the data by citing the published paper or list the person as an author again. Usually, we add the contributor as an author again if their work significantly accelerated the project (e.g., because they drew all the ROIs) or if they are actively involved in the follow-up project and contribute conceptually or intellectually. If the paper asks a whole new question using the same dataset, we typically acknowledge contributions by citing the first paper and do not add all the contributors again as authors.

c. Guidelines for authorship order and external collaborations

In the life sciences, authorship proceeds from first author to the second-to-last author in order of magnitude of contribution. The researcher leading the project is the first author on a paper. The final author in the author list, the senior author, is typically the PI of the lab in which the bulk of the work was conducted. They may also be the direct supervisor of the first author or the primary funder of the study. Middle authors are ordered according to the extent of their contributions from most to least.
Author order is often determined by the first and senior authors, as they are involved in the project from inception to publication. Nonetheless, the author order should be agreed upon by all researchers involved in the study before the study is submitted for peer review or a manuscript archive (e.g. bioRxiv).
Several scenarios might trigger a discussion about adding authors or re-ordering the list of authors. In each of these scenarios, it’s recommended that at least the first and senior author meet to discuss appropriate changes to the authorship list. Some scenarios include: (i) A researcher is no longer able to continue working on the project due to a career change, having other time commitments, or other reasons. (ii) A researcher is added to the project, e.g., new students join the lab, new collaborations are formed, or new analyses that require additional expertise not covered by the present research team.
Collaborations
- It is not uncommon for graduate students and postdocs to be supported by multiple labs or lead projects that span multiple labs. In this case, PIs from both labs can be acknowledged as co-senior authors.
- Collaboration can also lead to multiple contributors driving the project equally. In this case, co-first authorship allows multiple contributors to be acknowledged as the “first” author. In theory, the order of co-first authors does not matter, but in practice the first-first author position is considered preferable to second-first authorship. If you are second-first author, you may consider adjusting the order on your CV so you are first-first author, but this practice is sometimes debated in the field.

d. Responsibilities

All authors: All authors agree to be accountable for their contributions in the project and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are investigated and resolved. This also implies that all authors read and provide feedback to the manuscript before submission and approve the finalized version of the manuscript before submitting/uploading to a preprint server.
First author: Leads and manages the entire project. The first author is the primary person who analyzes the data and writes the manuscript. Responsibilities range from: theory and design, coding the experiment/stimuli, conducting experiments/simulations/modeling, collecting data, writing code, conducting data analyses, organizing the code and data for publication (e.g., on Github), writing the manuscript, and revising the manuscript following peer review.
Other authors: responsibilities depend on the contribution that made one to be a coauthor (see section B: Guidelines for authorship order and external collaborations).
Senior author: The senior author oversees and guides the work. Typically involved in all aspects of the work: funding and providing resources, IRB, theory and design, data analyses, giving feedback to researchers, writing the manuscript, and revising the manuscript following peer review.
Corresponding author: Takes primary responsibility for communicating with the journal. Serves as the point of contact about the inquiries about the published paper. Ensures data transparency and reproducibility. Typically the first or the senior author.

e. Project Contribution Spreadsheet

The purpose of this spreadsheet is to document your and your collaborators’ contributions to the project and to make transparent everyone’s contributions. It can also facilitate discussion about the contributions of each researcher. The spreadsheet will assist in deciding the final order of the authors in the manuscript as well as which contributions better fit the acknowledgements section.
The first author should create a sheet on this spreadsheet when the project begins.
The spreadsheet can be updated at any time during the project time course and should be updated during the circumstances mentioned in the prior sections.
Note: Being on the spreadsheet as a contributor does not guarantee authorship.

f. Conflicts

Setting clear expectations early and often is the best way to avoid conflicts. The Project Contribution Spreadsheet is one mechanism for setting expectations.
Communication is key to surfacing any issues related to authorship. When there is a conflict, start by having a conversation to clear up miscommunications and to make sure everyone is on the same page. Usually the go to person is the PI. If the PI is the person in conflict, surface the issue with another PI in the area, or head of the graduate program, or department chair.