Disclaimer: This infographic is not a validated scholarly decision aid. Information is provided without any representations, conditions, or warranties that it is accurate. BMJ and its licensors assume no responsibility for any working relationships damaged by the use of this information. Including all of these roles does not automatically guarantee publication in The BMJ. For the full disclaimer wording see BMJ's terms and conditions: http://www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/ Authorship anatomy • A guide for scholars © 2020 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. The process of manuscript writing, peer review, and publication is complex and intimidating to many. One political aspect of the manuscript submission process is the determination of author inclusion, order, and function. The ICMJE has a list of criteria that must be met to qualify for authorship, however this resource is not designed to provide information to scholars regarding the type and amount of support that authors provide. We provide an anatomic framework for scholars to contextualise authorship roles and provide guidance on authorship function. Extremely effective at literature review Kidney Well read Removal in the absence of emergency is more trouble than it’s worth Appendix Risky Incredibly helpful but few can understand what they do Liver Esoteric Probably only need half their talent and effort Lungs Overqualified Pushes everything forward Heart First author Best if this author contributes as little as possible Gallbladder Well-intentioned May respond dramatically to stress Adrenals Labile Simply stops working if the load gets too heavy Anterior cruciateligament Fragile Able to edit manuscripts down to mush Stomach Aggressive Aware of imbalanced author demographics Great toe Worldly The team is vulnerable to catastrophe when absent Spleen Protective Does not actually do that much work Airway Vocal Hair Flashy Most valuable contribution is promotion on social media Often the only author that actually has any idea what is going on Brain Sage Most likely to: Establish author order before the work is done Most likely to: Use a GIF to explain study conclusions Most likely to: Complain, even before starting the project Most likely to: Stop a heated argument about the Oxford comma Most likely to: Turn off “track changes” Most likely to: Triple the reference list Most likely to: Respond to reviewer 2 in ALL CAPS Most likely to: Critique manels the moment the flyer is posted on Twitter Most likely to: Be in charge of your promotion Most likely to: Suggest changing primary outcome during data analysis Most likely to: Exceed word count just with credentials and affiliations Most likely to: Know what %>% means Most likely to: Resend the conference line details 10 minutes before the meeting Most likely to: Suggest submitting to a different journal when an editor requests 'major revisions' DRAFT