Equity in Author Order

We’ve also published a paper on our Equity in Author Order Protocol catalystjournal that details the processes more fully (please cite this paper, rather than the video, if you use this method).

> And the secret is, don't be an asshole. -- Max Liboiron 1:12 / 10:57

**Introduction**: Author order is crucial; it is the currency of academia. Within STEM disciplines, women and junior researchers—those who are the primary constituents of our lab—consistently receive less credit for equal work (Rosser, 2004). Our Civic Laboratory for Environmental Action Research (CLEAR) is a feminist marine science laboratory at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Recognizing that the stakes of recognition are high for CLEAR members, we have developed an approach to author order that emphasizes process and equity rather than system and equality. Unlike most other labs, we do not attempt to objectively determine the value of contributions, nor do we reward only labor recognized as ‘intellectual’. Although CLEAR’s approach differs from others’, we take author order seriously as a compromised but dominant scientific structure with which we must contend. That is, rather than attempt to circumvent author order, we stay with the trouble.

Author order norms for the biological and animal sciences, where we publish most, understand the first author (what we call the Hot Young Thang), as the most important author in terms of findings, writing, and study design. The last author (The White/Wise Old Man), is the anchor of the paper, and provides the lab, training, and grants. These two positions receive the most credit for the research. Other authors rank between them from most important contributor to least. How is this order best determined?

> And math is easier than justice. -- Max Liboiron 7:26 / 10:57

CLEAR’s work is informed by the feminist value of equity, whether we are ordering supplies or building scientific instruments (see Liboiron, 2016). Equity is different than equality. Equality involves treating everyone exactly the same, and as a result has no impact on the uneven positions from which different people start. Equity, in contrast, is sensitive to the different positions of participants and so is potentially transformative of power relations. Existing author order protocols favor equality. Our own protocols foreground equity and are shaped b

Consensus allows a group to reach an acceptable and supportable resolution to an issue, even if that acceptance and support is uneven (see Treloar, 2013 on the importance of differentiating between uneven consensus and unanimous agreement). We follow the consensus based decision-making process, as described by Hartnett (2011), that involves identifying key concerns through open discussion, creating proposals that address them, then amending the proposal until everyone agrees to move forward. This can take a few minutes or a few weeks.

Care is a form of political and ethical practice that “holds things together” (de la Bellacasa, 2011, p.90; Martin et al., 2015). We also acknowledge that care work can disproportionately affect certain groups more than others depending on gender, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and perceived abilities. With this in mind, the lab aims to distribute and acknowledge care work in its various forms. Different forms of care we consider when discussing author order have included: training new members on protocols; maintaining equipment; cleaning up; contributing

CLEAR has eighteen members. Dr. Max Liboiron directs (non-tenured, woman). Dr. Charles Mather facilitates (tenured, man). We have one male PhD student, four female master’s students, and eleven undergraduates, ten of whom are women. We have one male staff member. We are one Indigenous woman, and a whole lot of white people. We have a bunch of queers, but we’ve never actually counted. Our members have had negative experiences in other labs: we have been mistaken for assistants rather than Primary Investigators (PIs); have had names moved down lists of aut