Authorship disputes usually start with a vague memory of who did what. This free tool builds a CRediT contribution matrix: list your authors, tick the roles each one actually performed, and copy a clean statement you can paste into a manuscript or journal form.
What the tool does
CRediT, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy, gives fourteen standard roles, from conceptualization and methodology to writing, supervision, and funding acquisition. Journals increasingly ask for a statement in exactly these terms, because free-text descriptions hide uneven contributions and make disputes harder to settle. This tool turns that requirement into a checklist. You enter one author per line, tick the roles that author performed, and the tool builds a matrix table plus a plain-text statement with one line per author. The statement is yours to edit before submission, and nothing you type leaves your browser.
How to use it
Agree the roles with your co-authors before anyone ticks a box, ideally in a short meeting or email thread, because the tool records decisions but cannot make them. Enter the authors in the order they will appear on the paper, press the button to show the role checkboxes, and tick honestly: a role counts if the person did the work, not if they supervised someone who did it, except for the supervision role itself. Press the build button, read the matrix for gaps, and copy the statement into your manuscript’s author contributions section.
Worked example
Take a three-author paper. Ana Ruiz ticks conceptualization, methodology, and writing the original draft. Kenji Sato ticks software, formal analysis, and visualization. Maria Chen ticks supervision, funding acquisition, and review and editing. The matrix shows at a glance that data curation is empty, which prompts the team to assign it before submission instead of discovering the gap in a journal form. The copied statement reads as three clean lines, one per author, ready to paste and adjust.
Reading the results honestly
A matrix is only as honest as the conversation behind it. Watch for two warning signs: an author with every role ticked, which usually means the roles were not discussed, and an author with only funding acquisition, which may not meet some journals’ authorship criteria on its own. If a contributor did important work but does not qualify as an author under your target journal’s rules, list them in the acknowledgements instead of stretching a role to fit. When roles change during revision, update the matrix and tell all authors, since silent changes cause the worst disputes.
Honest limits
This tool does not check journal authorship rules, does not verify that anyone did the work claimed, and does not resolve disagreements. CRediT roles are broad, so two people with the same tick may have done very different amounts of work; if that matters, add a sentence of detail in the manuscript. The matrix is saved nowhere except the page itself, so copy the statement before you close the tab, and keep a copy with your project records.
Practical tips
Fill in the matrix at the start of a project, not at submission, and revisit it at each milestone. Early agreement prevents the painful renegotiation that happens when a paper is nearly finished and everyone remembers their contribution differently. Store the final statement with the manuscript files, and reuse the same role decisions if the paper is rejected and resubmitted elsewhere, updating only what actually changed.
When authorship is disputed
If a dispute arises, the matrix becomes the starting point for mediation, not the verdict. Compare the matrix against project records such as lab notebooks, code commits, and draft histories, which show who actually did the work far better than memory does. Most journals and institutions have a written authorship policy; read it before the dispute hardens, because the policy usually names who decides and what evidence counts. Keep the tone factual throughout: list contributions, cite records, and propose a specific fix, such as adding an author, moving someone to the acknowledgements, or correcting the order. A calm, evidence-based approach resolves most disputes without formal complaints, and it protects working relationships that the next project will need.
Related tools
Spanish version: Matriz de Contribuciones de Coautores Gratis y Online: Roles CRediT · All free online tools.
Embed this tool on your website — free
Copy the code below to add this working tool to your own page. A small credit link stays with it — that’s all we ask.