Joint authorship in academic publishing: lessons for researchers

The recent decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in Prof Ardemis Boghossian v IOP Publishing Limited & Anor [2025] EWHC 3317 (IPEC) offers important guidance for research institutions, life sciences companies, and publishers navigating questions of authorship in academic outputs.

The court examined the circumstances in which a person is a joint author of a scientific paper, reaffirming that only authorial, creative contributions, not general oversight or editorial input, give rise to copyright authorship.

This ruling is particularly relevant to organisations operating in highly collaborative research environments, especially in universities and academia, where supervisors, principal investigators, research fellows, and industry partners often contribute at different stages of academic publication.

Background: a dispute over authorship

The case concerned a dispute between Professor Ardemis Boghossian and Dr Dejan Djokic, arising from research conducted at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Dr Djokic drafted a research paper entitled ‘Quantum yield in polymer wrapped single walled carbon nanotubes’, listing Professor Boghossian as one of several  authors. However, following a disputed breakdown in their relationship, Dr Djokic published a modified version of the paper in the scientific journal Nanotechnology, without crediting Professor Boghossian as a co‑author.

Professor Boghossian subsequently asserted that she was a joint author and alleged infringement of her copyright. She claimed that the modified version of the paper published in Nanotechnology reproduced a substantial part of the original draft she had helped shape.

The court’s key task was to determine whether she had made an authorial contribution to the draft, which would be required for her to qualify as a joint author and to benefit from copyright protection. After reviewing the evidence, the court ultimately held that Professor Boghossian had not made an authorial contribution, meaning she could not claim joint authorship or copyright infringement.

It remains to be seen whether Professor Boghossian seeks to appeal this decision.

How the court assessed joint authorship

Under section 10(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ‘joint authorship’ means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors. As interpreted in leading cases such as Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645, and as stipulated under paragraph 53 of the judgment, Lord Justice Floyd pointed out that joint authorship requires:

• collaboration between the individuals in creating the work: meaning the putative authors work together with a common design as to the general outline of the work and share the labour of bringing it about;
• authorship: each contributor must have made an authorial contribution, that is, a contribution involving original expression, not merely ideas. Authorship is broader and includes non-textual creative input;
• contributions involving skill and labour that appear in the work itself: that each person must have contributed significantly to the creation of the work and contributions must appear in the final form of the work, seen as a demonstrated intellectual creation, that is, the contributor’s own original expression; and
• non-distinctness of contribution: the contribution must be merged or ‘non-distinct’ in the produced work. Joint authorship does not apply where contributions are separable or where someone merely provides standalone ideas.

Furthermore:

• simply having a ‘final say’ over the content of a paper does not make someone an author;
• determining authorship is not a question of ‘who did the writing’;
• suggesting a standard structure for the paper or providing editorial corrections (including, in this case, the deletion of a section, which was not considered as an expressed contribution), general guidance, supervision or suggesting references to literature does not necessarily amount to an authorial contribution.

These principles are particularly significant in life sciences research, where project leads may significantly shape direction and methodology without necessarily drafting or materially expressing the content of publications.

Why Professor Boghossian’s claim failed

Lack of evidence of expressed authorial contribution

Although Professor Boghossian had reportedly provided a marked‑up version of the draft paper, the evidence did not show what changes she had made or whether any of her suggested changes survived into the final publication. The court stressed that:

• the burden of proof rests with the person, ie Professor Boghossian, who is claiming authorship;
• vague claims such as making ‘substantial amendments’ are insufficient without documentation to back up such claims;
• contributions not ‘expressed’ in the final work (eg the deletion of a section and  reference to literature that was uncited in the final paper) cannot count towards authorship.

Professor Boghossian did claim that she demonstrated her outline and drawings on the white board in her office, which she asserted was then used by Dr Djokic for both the research paper and the poster for a conference in September 2015. However, the court made a specific note that there was no claim in respect of artistic copyright in those figures, and that the claim was only made in respect of literary copyright.

A standard, non‑creative outline is not joint authorship

Professor Boghossian argued that she provided the paper’s outline. However, the structure she described (including the title, abstract, standard scientific sections, acknowledgements and footnotes) was found to be an orthodox scientific template/structure, not allowing room for creative freedom of expression. Such an outline did not meet the threshold, where joint authorship requires a personal intellectual stamp.

Inclusion on a draft does not guarantee authorship

Professor Boghossian’s name appeared on both the early draft and the conference poster, which she claimed demonstrated acknowledgment of her as a co-author. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that in academia:

• draft author lists often operate as invitations to contribute, not confirmations of authorship;
• only those individuals who subsequently go on to make authorial contributions are ultimately named.

Therefore, inclusion of an individual’s name under academic customary practice does not equate to copyright authorship.

Key takeaways for life sciences and research‑driven organisations

Maintain clear records of each person’s contributions

It is essential to:

• use shared documents with tracked changes;
• keep written summaries of substantive discussions about draft content; and
• document specific contributions made by each individual.

This record becomes invaluable and sometimes decisive if disputes on authorship arise.

Distinguish between academic practice and copyright law

In many scientific disciplines, it is common practice to include supervisors, lab heads, or senior colleagues as co-authors out of convention, mentorship, or recognition of broader project leadership. However, copyright law requires actual authorial input reflected in the final published work. Supervisory guidance, high-level idea generation, and general oversight do not create copyright authorship.

This distinction is crucial for organisations that collaborate with multiple researchers or across industry–academia partnerships.

Ensure clear authorship policies and expectations

Institutions involved in life sciences or technical research should implement some of the following:

• written authorship policies aligned with copyright law;
• early and transparent discussion regarding authorship and contributions at the outset of research projects; and/or
• agreed processes for resolving authorship disputes before submission.

Not only does this prevent conflict, but it reduces reputational and legal risk when manuscripts are submitted to publishers.

Conclusion

The IPEC’s decision reinforces an important principle: copyright recognises expression, not expertise, status, or expectation. For life sciences organisations, where interdisciplinary teams collaborate on complex research outputs, this ruling is a reminder that authorship must be grounded in demonstrating creative contribution.

By recording individuals’ contributions clearly, setting expectations early, and distinguishing between academic convention and legal requirements, organisations can better protect themselves, their researchers, and the integrity of their published work.

This article was co-written by Astor Chan, trainee solicitor.