| Course | GB893 Doctoral Project IV: Project Dissemination |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Authorship memo |
| Length | About 750 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB893 Unit 9
Five Contributors, One Author List: A Unit 9 Authorship Memo for a Dock Appointment Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB893: Doctoral Project IV: Project Dissemination
Unit 9 Authorship Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Haverly Logistics, the chair and every contributor are composite and illustrative; the sources on authorship and contribution cited are real.
Purpose
To: Dissertation chair. From: Candidate. Re: Authorship and acknowledgment for the manuscript drawn from the dissertation.
This memo proposes who will be listed as an author on the journal manuscript planned in Unit 5, who will be acknowledged and on what terms Haverly may review the manuscript before submission. It is written now because Fine and Kurdek (1993) recommend that faculty and students agree authorship early and revisit it as contributions change, rather than settle it after the writing is done.
How Contributions Are Described
Each contribution is described with the Contributor Roles Taxonomy, known as CRediT. Its fourteen roles are conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing of the original draft, and review and editing. The taxonomy was proposed by Allen et al. (2014) to make each person's contribution visible, and Brand et al. (2015) describe how it separates the work people did from the question of who is listed as an author.
The Contribution Table
The table has one row per person and five columns: what each did, the matching CRediT roles, a proposed status and a signature cell left blank.
The candidate. Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, visualization, original draft. Proposed status: first author.
The chair. Supervision and review and editing of the dissertation chapters. Proposed status: co-author on the manuscript only if the chair also contributes to its writing, stated as a condition to confirm. Supervision alone is acknowledged.
Haverly's yard systems analyst. Wrote the extraction query and explained the timestamp fields. Roles: data curation and resources. Proposed status: acknowledged by name, with permission.
The chief operating officer. Sponsored the study and granted access. Role: resources. Proposed status: acknowledged by role, not by name.
The carrier relations manager. Arranged the dispatcher interviews. Role: resources. Proposed status: acknowledged by role.
A classmate. Second-read three transcripts against the codebook. Role: validation. Proposed status: acknowledged by name, with permission.
Interviewees. Thanked collectively and never named, as the consent forms promised.
A contribution earns a place in the acknowledgments, and only a contribution to the paper's substance and its writing earns a place on the author list.
Why the Proposals Fall Where They Do
The memo follows the principle McNutt et al. (2018) set out for transparent authorship: every author should have contributed substantially to the design, the data, the analysis or the writing, approved the submitted version and agreed to be accountable for the work. The analyst and the classmate made real contributions but will not review, approve or answer for the manuscript, so acknowledgment fits. The chair's status depends on the condition above.
Order of Authors and Later Papers
If the chair becomes a co-author, the candidate is listed first, since the manuscript reports the candidate's dissertation and the candidate did most of the analysis and writing. Fine and Kurdek (1993) argue that a student whose dissertation is the basis of a paper should ordinarily be first author, and that departures from that rule need a specific justification. Any second paper, such as the shorter carrier piece planned in Unit 5, gets its own table, because contributions may differ. If someone's contribution grows or shrinks during drafting, the table is revised and signed again rather than left to memory.
Disagreements
If a contributor disagrees with a proposed status, the candidate and chair will meet with that person, review the contribution against the CRediT roles and the criteria above, and record the outcome. If agreement is not reached, the program's academic integrity office will be asked for guidance before submission. The manuscript will not be submitted while a disagreement is open.
Haverly's Review Right
Haverly may review the manuscript for confidential information only, within 30 days of receipt. It may ask for center names, volumes or contract terms to be generalized. It has no veto over findings or their interpretation. If it asks for a change that would alter a finding, the candidate and chair will decide whether the manuscript can proceed without that information.
Signatures
Each row ends with a blank signature line. The memo takes effect when the chair and each named person have signed or declined.
References
Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., & Altman, M. (2014). Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508(7496), 312-313. https://doi.org/10.1038/508312a
Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211
Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141-1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141
McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557-2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115
What the GB893 Unit 9 assignment asks for
For the ninth GB893 assignment, you address your chair in a memo that proposes authorship and acknowledgment for a manuscript drawn from your study. Explain why the memo is written before drafting. Describe contributions with a published taxonomy and list its roles. Build a table with one row per contributor, covering what each did, the matching roles, a proposed status and a signature cell. State any conditions, such as a contribution the chair would need to make to become a co-author. Explain the criteria that separate authors from acknowledged contributors, citing authorship guidance. Address author order, later papers, disagreements and how participants are thanked within consent terms. Set out the host organization's review right and its limits. Leave signatures blank. About five pages addressed to the chair is a common format for this memo in the course.
How this GB893 Unit 9 example is built
The sample's purpose section cites Fine and Kurdek on agreeing early. The CRediT section lists fourteen roles, cites Allen and colleagues and Brand and colleagues, and a margin note explains using a published taxonomy. The table proposes the candidate as first author, the chair as co-author only if the chair also writes, the analyst and classmate as acknowledged by name with permission, the chief operating officer and carrier relations manager by role, and interviewees collectively. The highlighted sentence separates acknowledgment from authorship, and McNutt and colleagues' criteria justify each proposal. Sections on author order, disagreements, Haverly's thirty-day review without a veto and blank signatures complete it.
GB893 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
The GB893 authorship memo is graded on fairness, transparency and timing. Instructors give credit for settling credit before drafting. Contributions described with a published taxonomy are easier for journals and contributors to read. Each row should show what the person did and why the proposed status follows. Conditions on co-authorship should be stated rather than assumed. Criteria from authorship guidance should justify each decision. Author order, later papers and a process for disagreement show planning. Thanking participants within consent terms shows ethical care. A host organization's review right should be limited to confidential information, without control over findings. Blank signature lines show the proposals await agreement.
Common GB893 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB893 authorship memos list the chair as co-author automatically, or leave authorship to be decided after submission. Others thank contributors without describing what they did. Students often blur acknowledgment and authorship, or assign authorship to sponsors as a courtesy. Host organizations are given approval over findings. No process exists for disagreement. Signature lines are filled in by the candidate. Write the memo before drafting, use a published taxonomy, describe each contribution, state conditions, justify each status with criteria, set author order and a dispute process, limit the host's review to confidential material and leave signatures for others. Send your contributor list, and our team can help draft the memo.
Get a GB893 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Everyone who helped belongs in what you send, each with a line on their part, along with any agreement your host organization signed and the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. What we draft describes contributions first, proposes statuses with the reasoning shown and leaves agreement to the people involved. A first custom sample is free; 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB893 papers and MBA samples
- GB893 Unit 1: Audience Analysis
- GB893 Unit 2: Executive Summary
- GB893 Unit 3: Conference Abstract
- GB893 Unit 4: Poster Draft
- GB893 Unit 5: Outlet Assessment
- GB893 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB893 Unit 7: Defense Preparation Outline
- GB893 Unit 8: Practitioner Briefing
- GB893 Unit 10: Dissemination Plan
- GB500 Unit 9: Professional Development Plan
- GB892 Unit 9: Departure Log
- GB512 Unit 9: Business Presentation Deck
- GB891 Unit 9: Deviation Report
GB893 Unit 9 questions, answered
Does a dissertation chair automatically become a co-author?
No. Practices vary by field, program and outlet, and most authorship policies require substantial contribution to the work and the writing, not supervision alone. Many chairs co-author when they help shape and revise the manuscript. Discuss it early, write the agreement down and follow the target outlet's policy, which governs whatever custom suggests.
What is the CRediT taxonomy?
A standard list of fourteen contributor roles, such as conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis and writing, used by many publishers to record who did what. It describes contributions; it does not decide authorship. An outlet's authorship policy sets the criteria, and the taxonomy helps apply them transparently to each person involved.
Can a host organization require approval before publication?
Agreements sometimes grant review for confidential information, which is reasonable. Approval over findings is different and can compromise the work's integrity. Read your data use agreement closely, and if its language is unclear or reaches findings, raise it with your chair and, where relevant, your review board before any manuscript is drafted.
Where can I find a free GB893 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB893 Unit 9 authorship memo for a dock appointment manuscript, describing six contributors in CRediT roles and proposing each one's status.
Who decides author order on a paper from a dissertation?
The candidate and chair agree it, usually listing the candidate first, since the dissertation is the basis of the paper. Departures from that order need a specific reason.