An acknowledgement section is read by almost nobody and indexed by no system that affects anyone's career.
Thanking the local team in a footnote costs the writing partner nothing and delivers nothing to the people thanked — which is precisely why it remains such a common solution.
What actually counts
- Authorship, in a position that reflects the contribution.
- Structured contribution statements that name specific roles.
- Co-authored datasets and software with their own identifiers.
- Named investigator status on the grant.
- These appear in databases and follow the person; acknowledgements do not.
Contributions that are systematically undervalued
- Designing and running data collection in a difficult field context.
- Local knowledge that determined the study was feasible at all.
- Building and maintaining relationships with participating communities.
- Translation, adaptation and cultural validation of instruments.
- Navigating approvals that would have blocked the project entirely.
Making contribution visible
- Use a structured contribution taxonomy in every paper.
- Publish the dataset separately with its own author list.
- Publish the protocol or method paper with local leads as first authors.
- Record contributions in a shared document as the project runs.
Beyond individual papers
- Support local partners to present at international conferences.
- Nominate them for editorial boards and review panels.
- Cite their prior work where relevant.
- Introduce them to your network explicitly, not passively.
Questions worth asking yourself
- Could this project have happened without this person?
- Would I accept this level of credit for this level of work?
- Is anyone in a position to tell me this is unfair?
- The last question is usually the most revealing.
One thing worth remembering
Ask yourself: is anyone in this project in a position to tell me the credit allocation is unfair?
If the honest answer is no — because they depend on the funding, the equipment, or the future collaboration — then the absence of complaint tells you nothing at all, and the responsibility for getting it right sits entirely with you.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
Why is acknowledgement not credit?
Because acknowledgement sections are read by almost nobody and indexed by no system that affects careers — they cost the writing partner nothing and deliver nothing to those thanked.
What actually counts as credit?
Authorship in a position reflecting the contribution, structured contribution statements naming roles, co-authored datasets and software with identifiers, and named investigator status on the grant.
Which contributions are systematically undervalued?
Designing and running data collection in difficult field contexts, local knowledge that made the study feasible, community relationships, instrument translation and validation, and navigating approvals.
How can contribution be made visible?
Use a structured contribution taxonomy in every paper, publish the dataset separately with its own author list, and publish the protocol paper with local leads as first authors.
What is the most revealing question to ask yourself?
Whether anyone in the project is in a position to tell you the credit allocation is unfair — if not, the absence of complaint tells you nothing.
