Authorship vs Acknowledgement in Core Facilities

Navigating the Grey Zone

---

[LLM] Authorship and acknowledgement in core facilities is still a grey area. It is often difficult to define where service ends and scientific contribution begins, and expectations can differ a lot between researchers and facility staff. Many of us have faced this issue, and we recently encountered it ourselves at The TRI Flow Cytometry Core Facility. A researcher approached our facility for a full-service flow cytometry experiment, including high-parameter panel design, sample acquisition and data analysis. Before starting the project, we raised the question of authorship and acknowledgement. While the researcher agreed to acknowledge the facility, they declined authorship on the basis that the work was being paid for as a service. This situation is not uncommon and highlights a broader issue across core facilities.

To help guide these decisions, the Technician Commitment – ACS Task Force has published authorship and acknowledgement guidelines. We have also invited Kylie Price, Chief Technology Officer and Hugh Green Fellow at the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, to share her insights on how she navigates this issue.

Q1. What are the main challenges around authorship and acknowledgement in core facilities?

[KP] One of the biggest challenges is a lack of shared understanding of what constitutes a meaningful intellectual contribution versus a paid service. In many cases, researchers simply do not have visibility of the depth of input provided by core facility staff. Work that appears “routine” from the outside often involves significant expertise in experimental design, optimisation, troubleshooting, and data interpretation.

This is particularly true in fields like flow cytometry, where the complexity has increased dramatically. Designing and validating a 45-parameter panel, for example, is fundamentally different from assembling a basic (6-10 colour) panel, yet this escalation in technical and analytical complexity is not always appreciated.

Another key issue is process. Core facility staff are frequently not given the opportunity to contribute to the manuscript drafting or review. This creates a structural barrier to authorship, as most journal guidelines require involvement in writing and approval of the final manuscript. As highlighted in our publication Ferrer-Font L et al. Cytometry. 2023, denying contributors the opportunity to participate in manuscript preparation can effectively exclude them from authorship, even when their contribution would otherwise qualify.

Finally, there remains a persistent misconception that payment for services negates the need for authorship consideration. This overlooks the fact that many contributors to research outputs are salaried, yet still appropriately recognised as authors when they make substantial intellectual contributions.

Q2. Why does this matter for core facilities and their staff?

[KP] Recognition through authorship or meaningful acknowledgement is not just symbolic, it has tangible professional and institutional impact.

For staff, it provides validated evidence of expertise, contribution, and scientific impact. This directly supports career progression, performance evaluation, and salary review. It also contributes to professional identity, motivation, and job satisfaction. Being recognised by peers as a contributor to high-quality science matters.

At the institutional level, publications are a key metric of impact. As outlined in our work, the number of publications involving core facility staff is an important indicator of both expertise and value, and can influence future funding and support for these platforms.

More broadly, appropriate recognition reinforces a culture of collaboration and respect. When contributions are visible, it strengthens the perception of core facilities as scientific partners rather than transactional service providers.

Q3. How can we improve practices moving forward?

[KP] I believe improvement starts with leadership and increased visibility. Institutions need to actively communicate the scientific value of technical specialists and the role they play in producing robust, reproducible research. Initiatives like the Technician Commitment are critical in elevating this conversation, particularly around visibility, recognition, and career progression.

Practically, early and explicit conversations are essential. Expectations around authorship and acknowledgement should be discussed at project initiation, not at the point of manuscript submission. Providing clear, widely shared guidelines, such as those outlined below, helps establish a common framework for decision-making.

It is also important to remove structural barriers. Core facility staff should routinely be given the opportunity to review and contribute to manuscripts where their work underpins the data. This not only supports fair authorship decisions but also improves the quality and reproducibility of the science.

Finally, normalising appropriate recognition has broader benefits. When technical expertise is consistently acknowledged, it helps attract and retain skilled professionals in these roles, supporting the long-term sustainability of core facilities and the research ecosystem as a whole.

Further Reading

–Australasian Cytometry Society – Publication Acknowledgement Guidelines

–Royal Microscopical Society – Authorship guidelines for imaging facilities:

–Defining authorship criteria in biomedical research (ICMJE)

–ABRF – Authorship guidelines

–University of Arizona Research Cores – Acknowledging Core Facilities

-Ferrer-Font L, Schmidt A, Ronchese F, Price KM. A guideline for the appropriate recognition of shared resource laboratories in publication. Cytometry. 2023;103(3):193–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24713