Standard Acknowledgements

  • For all research publications or press releases, the full acknowledgement is required. Include the exact phrase "A portion of this research was supported by NIH grant R24GM154185 and performed at the Pacific Northwest Center for Cryo-EM (PNCC) with assistance from <INSERT_PNCC_STAFF_NAMES>. " In the appropriate Acknowledgements/Funding section.
  • For all presentations and posters, a shortened acknowledgement is acceptable. Include the exact phrase “Use of Pacific Northwest Center for Cryo-EM supported by NIH grant R24GM154185” on any Acknowledgements/Funding paragraph or slide. 
Further details can be found on our Usage Disclaimers webpage. 

Acknowledgement and Authorship Guidelines

General Access

General Access Projects

PNCC provides users access to state-of-the-art cryo-EM instrumentation, training, and user support to enable high-quality structural biology research. Investigators with approved General Access PNCC projects may receive assistance from PNCC Scientific Points of Contact (SPOCs) throughout the entire cryo-EM workflow, including sample preparation, grid screening, data collection, and computational analysis.

Because PNCC must ensure equitable access and support for a large national user base, SPOC involvement in individual projects varies widely – from brief technical consultations to deep scientific collaborations. This document clarifies when SPOC involvement under the PNCC General Access Mechanism (GA) meets the threshold that warrants co-authorship on scientific publications, consistent with AAAS authorship standards.

1. Guiding Philosophy
Authorship at PNCC is based on substantial scientific contribution, not on the amount of time spent assisting users or the technical complexity of the work performed.

  • Routine user support, training, troubleshooting, and standard operational assistance do not justify authorship.
  • Intellectual or scientific contributions that influence the conception, design, execution, interpretation, or presentation of GA projects may warrant authorship.
  • All publications using PNCC resources must acknowledge NIH funding and also acknowledge individual staff for meaningful non-authorship contributions (as stated in our PNCC general policies).


2. Expectations for Users and Principal Investigators
Principal investigators and trainees are responsible for:

  • Discussing authorship early, especially if SPOC involvement increases over time
  • Ensuring all group members understand PNCC authorship policies
  • Consulting with the PNCC executive team when SPOC roles or contributions become substantial
  • Including appropriate acknowledgments for PNCC funding and staff contributions
  • Communicating proactively if project goals, complexity, or SPOC involvement change over time

Because SPOC time must be equitably distributed across a large national user base, deeper scientific involvement should be anticipated early and discussed proactively. Authorship discussions should occur before finalizing a manuscript.

3. Defining “Substantial Scientific Contribution” at PNCC
In alignment with AAAS criteria, substantial contribution requires both:

  1. Meaningful intellectual input into the scientific aspects of the research, and

  2. Willingness and ability to take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the components contributed.

At PNCC, “substantial scientific contribution” means SPOC involvement that materially shapes the research objectives or conclusions, going beyond routine training, standard workflows, or technical execution.

The following sections describe how these criteria apply at PNCC under the General Access Mechanism, with examples and guidance to support fair and consistent authorship determinations.

4. Contributions That MAY Warrant Co-Authorship
Authorship is appropriate when the SPOC(s) make contributions that meaningfully advance the scientific goals of the project.

Examples include:

  • Designing or materially redesigning the experimental or data-collection strategy in ways that influence the scientific objectives or conclusions
  • Providing substantive sample-optimization guidance that shapes what data can be collected or how biological conclusions can be reached
  • Developing or implementing non-standard or advanced data collection methods (e.g., custom tilt schemes or specialized imaging workflows) necessary for achieving the scientific aims
  • Performing a major portion of data collection as an intellectual collaborator, where scientific judgement (not routine execution) is essential to obtaining interpretable results
  • Conducting or guiding data analysis or interpretation beyond initial quality assessment
  • Participating directly in scientific interpretation and conclusions
  • Creating or revising key methods, figures, or scientific narrative for the manuscript


5. Contributions That Do NOT Typically Warrant Authorship
Routine support tasks that are part of PNCC’s mission do not qualify as authorship-level contributions, even when time-consuming or technically advanced.

Examples include:
•    Standard training on microscopes, workflows, or software
•    Providing recommended or updated PNCC protocols or best practices
•    Routine grid screening, microscope checks, or instrument alignment
•    Occasional staff-assisted data collection following the user’s parameters
•    Troubleshooting standard instrument behavior
•    Providing feedback on data quality (e.g., motion, CTF, ice thickness)
•    Helping users set up CSLive
•    Advice on typical (field-standard) parameters (e.g., dose, defocus range, or grid type)
•    General advice on common sample optimization practices

PNCC consider these activities as essential but not considered as substantial scientific contributions.

6. Substantial vs. Non-Substantial Contributions 
The table below outlines operational criteria to assist investigators and SPOCs in determining when the standards of substantial scientific contribution have been met.

7. Decision Framework for Authorship at PNCC
Authorship determinations should be based on the cumulative nature of the SPOC’s contributions to the project. A simple decision pathway to guide discussions:

  1. Did the SPOC provide scientific input that materially shaped experimental design, data collection strategy, or interpretation?
  2. Was this input essential to advancing the research or enabling the key conclusions?
  3. Did the contribution go beyond PNCC’s standard training and technical support?
  4. Is the SPOC willing and able to accept authorship responsibility for the contributed work?

 

  • If the answer is ‘yes’ to most questions, co-authorship is likely warranted. 
  • If the answer is largely ‘no’, acknowledgment is appropriate.

8. Co-authorship under the PNCC Screening Access Mechanism.
The guidelines above apply to SPOC involvement on projects approved through the General Access Mechanism. In contrast, projects conducted under the Screening Access Mechanism operate through a defined collaborative framework in which SPOCs typically make substantial scientific contributions to the project. As outlined in the Screening Access application and user agreement, this mechanism generally anticipates SPOC co-authorship because of the deep, project-integrated scientific role they play.

9. Contact for Questions
PNCC is committed to supporting high-quality cryo-EM research while ensuring fair and transparent recognition of staff contributions. For clarification on authorship issues or for help evaluating borderline cases, users should contact the PNCC Executive Team at: user.office@pncc.online
 

Screening Access

Screening Access Projects

PNCC provides users access to state-of-the-art cryo-EM instrumentation, training, and user support to enable high-quality structural biology research. Investigators with approved Screening Access Projects receive assistance from two PNCC Scientific Points of Contact (SPOCs) throughout their visit to PNCC (up to five days). This assistance includes sample quality checkup, grid freezing, sample optimization, grid screening, data collection, computational analysis, and data quality evaluation. Because Screening Access projects typically require substantial scientific involvement from PNCC Scientific Points of Contact (SPOCs), these projects are generally considered collaborative efforts. Accordingly, this document clarifies authorship recommendations for Screening Access projects, where SPOC co-authorship is commonly anticipated due to the depth of scientific collaboration involved, consistent with AAAS authorship standards.

These guidelines are intended to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency across PNCC projects while supporting high-quality science and appropriate recognition of contributions. They are not intended to replace journal-specific authorship policies, but to align PNCC practices with widely accepted standards. 

1. Guiding Philosophy
Authorship at PNCC is based on substantial scientific contribution, not on the amount of time spent assisting users or the technical complexity of the work performed.

  • Routine user support, training, troubleshooting, and standard operational assistance do not justify authorship.
  • Intellectual or scientific contributions that influence the conception, design, execution, interpretation, or presentation of Screening Access projects may warrant authorship.
  • All publications using PNCC resources must acknowledge PNCC and its NIH funding sources, as well as individual staff for meaningful non-authorship contributions. Please see PNCC general policies.

2. Defining “Substantial Scientific Contribution” at PNCC
In alignment with AAAS criteria, substantial contribution requires both:

  1. Meaningful intellectual input into the scientific aspects of the research, and
  2. Willingness and ability to take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the components contributed.

At PNCC, “substantial scientific contribution” means SPOC involvement that materially shapes the research objectives or conclusions, going beyond routine training, standard workflows, or technical execution. As Screening Access projects involve highly tailored workflows and intensive troubleshooting performed by the assigned SPOCs, their contributions generally exceed standard technical or operational support typically offered on General Access proposals.

3. Early Communication and Transparency
To avoid misunderstandings:

  • PIs are encouraged to discuss the anticipated level of SPOC involvement at the start of a Screening Access project, particularly when extensive collaboration is expected.
  • SPOCs should communicate clearly if their role evolves from routine support to scientific collaboration.
  • PNCC’s Executive Team is available to advise on authorship questions when needed.

4. Contributions That MAY Warrant Co-Authorship
Authorship is appropriate when the SPOC(s) make contributions that meaningfully advance the scientific goals of the project.

Examples include:

  • Optimizing sample freezing conditions through multiple iterative rounds of grid preparation and screening during the user visit to PNCC.
  • Providing substantive feedback to users on biochemical sample optimization based on results obtained during the Screening Access visit.
  • Designing or materially redesigning experimental strategies in ways that directly influence scientific objectives, data quality, or conclusions.
  • Conducting, directing, or guiding data analysis and interpretation beyond initial quality assessment or routine validation.
  • Participating directly in scientific interpretation of results and shaping the study’s conclusions.
  • Generating preliminary data that materially supports or enables the Screening Access user to transition to a subsequent General Access (GA) project at PNCC.
  • Creating, revising, or substantially contributing to key methods, figures, or the scientific narrative of a manuscript.

In such cases, the SPOC(s) should be offered co-authorship, even if the final publication is submitted substantially later than the Screening Access visit. SPOC(s) should be included in discussions regarding manuscript preparation and submission.

5. Responsibilities of SPOC Co-Authors
When authorship is warranted, SPOCs are expected to:

  • Review and approve the final manuscript.
  • Take responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the portions to which they contributed.
  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
  • Agree to be accountable under standard scientific authorship principles.

6. Acknowledgment Requirements
Regardless of authorship:

  • All publications resulting from PNCC access must acknowledge PNCC and its NIH funding sources, as specified in PNCC general policies.
  • PNCC staff members who contribute meaningfully, but below the authorship threshold, should be acknowledged by name.

7.  Contact for Questions
PNCC is committed to supporting high-quality cryo-EM research while ensuring fair and transparent recognition of staff contributions. For clarification on authorship issues or for help evaluating borderline cases, users should contact the PNCC Executive Team at: user.office@pncc.online