Ethics & Teamwork

§1 Authorship

Who earns authorship

The lab follows the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework for determining authorship. CRediT defines fourteen distinct contribution types (from conceptualization and methodology to data curation, writing, and funding acquisition) and provides a principled basis for deciding who has contributed sufficiently to be named an author. When in doubt, consult the CRediT taxonomy and discuss with the PI.

Additional guidance on authorship principles and the specific responsibilities of first authors will be provided in the General Lab Manual, currently in development. This document and the General Lab Manual will cross-link once both are complete.

Setting expectations early

Authorship conversations begin at the start of a project. Preliminary role assignments help with project planning and ensure that everyone understands what is expected of them from the outset. These assignments may shift over time as the project evolves and people's actual contributions become clear. As a paper comes together, the authorship team and the PI will revisit what feels accurate and appropriate.

First authorship carries significant responsibility. Whoever holds that role must be able to carry out its demands effectively and on a reasonable timeline. This is a practical as much as an ethical consideration.

Gift authorship

Adding someone to a paper who has not contributed meaningfully is gift authorship, and it should not happen. If a person has contributed intellectually, financially, or materially to the work, authorship should be offered to them. Authors may always request moving themselves to the acknowledgments section or being removed from the paper entirely; this request should be honored.

Authorship disputes

If you have concerns about authorship, whether your own or someone else's, bring them to the PI privately, before any direct conflict develops. Do not let discomfort fester. The sooner a concern is raised, the more options exist for resolving it fairly.

§2 Credit and acknowledgment

The 1+n rule

Ideas, methods, and intellectual contributions generally do rise to authorship level in this lab; the CRediT taxonomy covers more than most people expect. For contributions that fall just short of that threshold, a practical guideline is the 1+n rule:

• If a single meaningful conversation with a person substantially and materially influenced the work, that person belongs in the acknowledgments.
• If there was a follow-up conversation (the +n part), that person should be offered authorship. They may decline, and that is their choice. But the offer should be made.

People's time and thinking are real contributions. Err toward generosity.

Funding, resources, and collaborators

All relevant funding sources, institutional resources, and collaborators must be acknowledged in every publication. Before submitting any manuscript, review the acknowledgments section with the PI to make sure nothing has been missed. This is a first author responsibility. Additional guidance is in the General Lab Manual under Responsibilities of First Authors.

§3 Data integrity and figures

Interpreting results

Results should be interpreted by human beings and discussed as a team before any narrative is built around them. The framing of findings matters: every author on a paper should be able to stand behind the story being told, and that story should be appropriate for the current state of the field so that it passes peer review for the right reasons. Bring results to collaborators and to the PI early, discuss what they do and do not show, and revise accordingly.

Negative results

Negative results are results. Absence of a finding, when backed by appropriate statistical evidence, is scientifically meaningful. The field learns from negative results as much as from positive ones. Do not suppress or minimize them.

Figure craft

Figures are assembled by human beings. Visual representation and the ordering of information are primary factors in how readers understand scientific work. Figure craft is a multi-month process, not a finishing step. Most things that seem obvious to the person who ran the analysis are not obvious to a reader approaching the work for the first time.

Get feedback on your figures early and often. Ask colleagues how things look, what makes sense, and what does not. Bring figures to lab meeting. Revise based on what you hear. Figure critique is central to communicating science well.

§4 Handling errors

Your own mistakes

When you find an error in your own work: acknowledge it honestly and openly, correct it, and let everyone who might be affected know. Do not be embarrassed. Failure and mistakes are the lifeblood of science: they are how scientists learn, and they often illuminate principles that would otherwise remain invisible. Fixing a mistake frequently makes the work stronger than it would have been had the mistake never occurred. Be generous with your self-critique. Be kind to yourself too. Perfection can be boring. Failure is often interesting.

Someone else's work

If you think you have found an error in a colleague's code or analysis, proceed with caution. First, ask yourself whether you are certain it is an error, and whether you have a fuller grasp of the problem than the other person. Schedule a meeting to discuss it. Listen to their explanation of how they approached the problem. Take their perspective seriously.

If after that conversation you still believe there is an error, write down your reasoning clearly and offer it as a form of help, not a correction. Give the other person the opportunity to investigate and respond. The goal is to strengthen the lab's work, not to score a point. If the error is real and is corrected, everyone benefits.

Research misconduct

If you believe you are witnessing research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, willful plagiarism, or sabotage), bring this to the PI directly and in private. Do not confront the person involved. We will discuss how to proceed. If the concern involves the PI, see §8 for institutional resources.

§5 Lab culture and environment

The lab should be a place where people feel free to be creative, explore, experiment, make mistakes, ask questions, including questions that feel obvious, and receive thoughtful, constructive answers. Isolation is bad for everyone. Computational work also requires sustained focus and something like a flow state, and that focus deserves protection.

Respect for focus

Be mindful of the level of quiet in the shared space. Do not play music on speakers. If you are having a conversation or a phone call that will go on for more than a few minutes, move to a conference room or a private space. Respect the region of quiet around a colleague's desk that allows them to concentrate.

Asking about each other's work

Asking a genuine question about something on a colleague's screen is one of the best ways to learn in a computational environment. Do this sparingly and with sensitivity. You do not want to be invasive or to interrupt someone at a critical moment. When someone is clearly in deep focus, wait. When there is a natural opening, curiosity is welcome.

Sharing code

Code should be shared freely and often, through Raredon Lab repositories on GitHub. This is how the team learns from one another, how credit is established and tracked, and how contributions remain visible even after people have moved on from the lab. See Document 03 for the full workflow.

§6 Disagreement

With colleagues

Work to understand one another. Assume good intentions. Most disagreements in a lab context stem from knowledge gaps or different framings of the same problem, not from bad faith. If you find yourself in a conflict that feels personal or that you cannot resolve directly, bring it to the PI's attention before it escalates. The lab should be a comfortable space for everyone. If it is not comfortable, something needs to change.

With the PI: the rule of three

Scientific disagreement with the PI is healthy and expected. The following approach is recommended when you believe the PI is wrong or that a proposed course of action will waste your time:

With external collaborators

Bring any significant disagreement with a collaborator to the PI's attention before responding. Collaborative relationships are long-term investments, and how disagreements are handled matters for the lab's reputation and future partnerships.

§7 Communication and reliability

Meetings and seminars

Lab meetings, project meetings, and any meeting you are invited to should be treated as a priority. These are where the lab builds shared understanding, develops trust, solves problems together, and discovers things that no one would find working alone. Show up, pay attention, engage with speakers, ask questions, and contribute.

Attending seminars and talks outside the lab is equally important. Yale offers an extraordinary density of scientific talks and speaker series. Aim for one to two seminars per week across your time in the lab. These are a primary mechanism for staying current with what leading scientists are doing, learning how to present science, and encountering ideas from adjacent fields that may prove relevant to your own work. Be selective with your time, but do not opt out entirely.

Response expectations

Weekends and evenings are generally protected time. Respect them in others and hold them for yourself.

Reliability and not overpromising

Being a reliable team member means knowing your own capacity and communicating it honestly. Do not commit to a deadline you cannot meet. If you need more time, say so early enough for the other person to plan around it. Ask for extensions when you need them, but do not let this become a habit that slows down colleagues unnecessarily.

Pass high-quality work slowly rather than rough work quickly. If a task is genuinely beyond your capacity in the available time, delegate and teach so that it can be completed. Protecting your own time is not selfish; it is a precondition for doing good work.

§8 When something is wrong

If you feel uncomfortable with a colleague's conduct, a scientific practice you have observed, or pressure you are receiving from any direction, bring it to the PI's attention directly and in private. We will work to understand the situation and find a path forward. The lab should be a comfortable environment for everyone; if it is not, that is a problem worth addressing.

If the concern involves the PI and you feel comfortable raising it directly, please do. If you do not feel comfortable doing so, external mentors on your mentorship committee are a good first step. Yale also provides institutional resources for situations that require confidential support or formal reporting.

Yale resources

§9 The PI's role

The PI's role is to help people learn, develop as independent scholars, and feel comfortable working in the lab both individually and as part of a team. This includes project management, assigning and delegating roles and responsibilities, and maintaining a community of thinkers and doers who can work well alongside one another.

The work of being a PI is going well when people are operating with independence and self-direction, feel curious about what they are studying, are enjoying their work, are getting along in the lab, and are actively helping one another troubleshoot problems, transfer knowledge, and cross-train in key techniques, and when no one feels burdened by unreasonable demands.

If the PI is failing at any of these things, please say so. We will adjust.