Writing Acknowledgements and Conflict of Interest Statements

Learn how to write acknowledgements in a research paper: name each person or funder who helped, say what they did, keep it brief and leave out anyone who qualifies as an author. Funding and declarations then go in their own statements.

Picture a manuscript that is finished except for its last page. The authors disagree about whether the lab technician belongs on the byline, nobody has the grant number, and the journal wants a competing interests line. This guide goes from the simplest paragraph upward, one statement at a time. Authorship order stays a separate decision. For the wider setting, see what is bioscience research, and for a different manuscript type, how to write a review article in biology.

Start with a short acknowledgements paragraph

A plain paragraph that thanks the right people for specific help is enough for most papers. Acknowledgements are informal. In the thesis context, AUT’s thesis guidance notes that the section is not examined and works mainly as a space to recognise the contributions of others. The same logic holds for journal articles. This is where thanks go, not where credit for the science is assigned.

1. List the helpers. Write down everyone who gave substantial assistance. The AUT guidance says the acknowledgement should name the people who provided it.
2. Attach a contribution to each name. Researchminds advises adding what you thank each person for, meaning what they contributed to your project. A bare name tells readers nothing.
3. Keep it brief. Kumar and Sanderson, quoted in the AUT guidance, suggest acknowledgements stay brief and simple and at the very least thank supervisors.
4. Order from general to specific. Enago suggests moving from funders to advisors, colleagues, support staff and then family.

Here is fill-in wording to adapt:

We thank [name] for [specific help, such as sample preparation or statistical advice], [name] for [specific help], and [name] for comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We are grateful to [name or group] for [type of support].

Do not feel obliged to name every possible group. Researchminds says plainly that there is no need to include all of them and that you should do as you feel is right. Examiners do read this section, and the AUT material reports that it informs their view of the rest of the thesis. A careless or thin paragraph can colour how the work is received.

Decide who is acknowledged and who is an author

People who gave substantial assistance but whose role does not meet your journal’s authorship standard belong in the acknowledgements. Those whose contribution does meet it belong on the byline. Settle this question before you draft any wording, because the acknowledgements paragraph should never be a way of avoiding an authorship conversation. Check the journal’s own author guidance for its criteria, and follow the ICMJE recommendations if the journal adopts them.

Commonly acknowledged groups

Enago, citing bibliometrics researchers such as Cronin and colleagues, describes six fundamental categories of acknowledgement, including financial, editorial and technical support. In practice this gives you a checklist of people to consider:

• Supervisors and advisors. The minimum thank-you in the guidance quoted above.
• Technical and support staff. Name the task, for example imaging, animal care or sample handling.
• Colleagues who commented on drafts. Describe the help as feedback rather than implying they endorse the conclusions.
• Funding bodies or sponsors. These are listed among common recipients by Researchminds, and they get their own statement, covered next.

Why omissions matter

Enago warns that omitting significant supporters might raise ethical concerns. If a funder or a key helper is missing, the fix is cheap before submission and awkward afterwards. Ask named individuals whether they are comfortable being thanked, and adjust wording if they prefer a different description of their role.

Add a funding statement with grant numbers

If the work was funded, add a separate funding statement naming the funder and the grant number. Enago notes that many funding organizations have specific acknowledgement criteria, such as requiring their logos or grant numbers. Look at your award terms before writing, because the funder’s required wording overrides any model sentence.

Enago gives this pattern: This research was made possible through the XYZ Grant (Grant No. 12345) from the National Institute of Research. Replace each element with your own details:

This work was supported by [funder name] ([grant number]) awarded to [author initials or name]. [Funder name] had no role in [study design, data collection, analysis, or the decision to publish], or: [describe the funder’s role].

The final clause is optional wording to adapt only if it is true and your journal asks for it. Where several funders supported the work, give each funder with its own grant number, and keep the wording identical to the award letter so the identifiers can be traced. If the work had no dedicated funding, say so in one short sentence rather than leaving the statement out, provided the journal asks for a funding statement.

Add a competing interests declaration

A competing interests declaration, also called a conflict of interest statement, tells readers about relationships that could reasonably be seen as influencing the work. It is separate from the acknowledgements and from the funding statement, although a funder can also appear as a competing interest. Most journals collect it through a field on the submission form and print it in the published article. Use the journal’s own form and wording when they differ from the models below.

When nothing needs declaring

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

When something does

[Author name] [describe the relationship, such as employment, consultancy, shareholding, or a funding or advisory role] with [organisation], which [describe how it relates to the topic of the study]. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Be factual and specific, and err on the side of disclosure. A relationship that is declared and explained rarely causes trouble. One discovered later can. Each author should confirm their own entry rather than one author answering for the team. Remember that financial support for the study is not automatically a conflict, but it still goes in the funding statement.

Add an author contributions statement using CRediT

If the journal asks for an author contributions statement, it often points to the CRediT taxonomy, which names standard contributor roles. This statement describes what each author did. It does not rank the authors and does not decide byline order, so agree order separately. Each journal’s instructions say which roles and format it accepts, so copy role names from the taxonomy the journal specifies rather than inventing your own.

Model wording:

[Author initials]: [role], [role]. [Author initials]: [role], [role]. [Author initials]: [role]. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Work through the list author by author, asking each person which roles they held. Every author should have at least one role, and any role used should be held by someone who can answer for it. Contributors who held no authorship-level role but helped practically go back to the acknowledgements paragraph, where a thank-you with a described task is the right credit.

Checkpoints before you submit

Run through these checks when all four statements are drafted. They show where to stop adding material as well as where to add more.

• Each name has a task. If you cannot say what a person did, cut or rewrite the line.
• Funders match the award. Funder names and grant numbers should be copied from the award documents, including any logo or wording the funder requires.
• Nobody appears twice in conflicting roles. A person credited with an authorship-level role should not also be thanked as a helper.
• Declarations are complete and current. Every author has confirmed their own competing interests entry.
• Length stays modest. Brief and simple remains the benchmark, so stop once every substantial helper and funder is covered.

If the journal’s guidance conflicts with anything above, follow the journal. When a request for a change comes back from the editorial office, revise only the statement concerned; the other statements are independent. For more on the publishing context, the bioscience journals hub lists related guides.

Frequently asked questions