TY - JOUR T1 - No one left behind: a case for more inclusivity in authorship for quality improvement and implementation research JF - BMJ Quality & Safety JO - BMJ Qual Saf SP - 779 LP - 781 DO - 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013067 VL - 30 IS - 10 AU - Jennifer S Myers AU - Meghan Lane-Fall AU - Christine Soong Y1 - 2021/10/01 UR - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/30/10/779.abstract N2 - Authorship has long been seen as the coin of the realm in academic medicine. Students seek publications on their resumes, faculty get promoted at least in part based on publication volume and impact and anyone who succeeds in authoring a publication points proudly to the external recognition that legitimises their work. So, what happens when a new type of science that involves rapid tests of change, diverse team members and the realities of shifting institutional priorities becomes a prevalent and acceptable form of scholarship in healthcare? Philips and colleagues in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety, argue how authorship determination in quality improvement (QI) and implementation research warrants a unique approach compared with traditional human subjects research where authorship has been discussed extensively.1 Their Viewpoint highlights the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship and notes the subjectivity of the guideline criteria that states, ‘the author made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data’.2 Philips and colleagues then discuss three areas that they believe should be considered by QI and implementation research teams when approaching manuscript development: (1) the degree to which the improvement work is generalisable enough to warrant dissemination through publication; (2) what ‘counts’ as substantial contribution to warrant authorship and (3) how the timing of authorship determination can influence invitations for and determinations about authorship. This topic provides us with an opportunity to consider how QI and implementation research publication discussions unfold in real world practice. In particular, we expand on their second objective related to authorship and discuss how we as a community of improvement scholars might be more inclusive.Imagine the following scenario: You are leading an initiative designed to reduce unnecessary antibiotics for patients with … ER -