Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
The acknowledgments section is where a manuscript credits contributions and support that don’t rise to authorship: funding, technical assistance, non-author intellectual input, and institutional or material support. It sits in a paper’s back matter, usually between the Discussion/Conclusion and the reference list, and it is easy to draft carelessly because it feels like a formality — but a sloppy acknowledgments section can create real problems: omitting a required funding-disclosure statement, misrepresenting who did what, or thanking someone without their permission.
This guide covers the mechanics of drafting an acknowledgments section: what to include, in what order, and how to phrase funding and contributor statements correctly. For the separate question of who belongs in acknowledgments versus on the byline, see CASRAI’s Acknowledgments Section dictionary entry, which covers the ICMJE authorship-boundary rules in depth; for the formal contributor-role alternative many journals now require alongside or instead of prose acknowledgments, see Author Contribution Statement.
Last verified 25 August 2026 against ICMJE’s Recommendations for manuscript preparation and standard journal author-guideline conventions.
What Goes in an Acknowledgments Section
Funding Sources
A specific, complete statement of financial support: the funding body’s full name, grant or award numbers, and which author(s) received the funding. Many journals require this as a standardized statement (sometimes pulled into a separate “Funding” field rather than prose acknowledgments) rather than free text — check the target journal’s specific format before drafting, since an incomplete or missing funding statement is one of the more common reasons a submission gets sent back for correction.
Non-Author Contributors
People who contributed meaningfully to the work but do not meet the journal’s full authorship criteria — for example, someone who provided general supervision of a research group, acquired funding without contributing to the design or writing, provided technical help (running an assay, administering a survey), or gave writing or editorial assistance. ICMJE’s Recommendations state plainly that such contributors “should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged,” and that because readers may infer contributors’ endorsement of the data and conclusions from being named, written permission to be acknowledged should be obtained from every person named.
Material and Technical Support
Access to specimens, datasets, equipment, facilities, or core services that materially supported the work but did not involve an individual contributor’s own research judgment — for example, a core facility that ran samples on a shared instrument, or an archive that provided access to historical records.
Conflicts and Disclosures (Where the Journal Places Them Here)
Some journals fold conflict-of-interest disclosures into the acknowledgments/back-matter block rather than a separate section; others require a fully separate disclosure statement. Follow the specific journal’s structure rather than assuming acknowledgments is the right place by default.
What Does Not Belong Here
Acknowledgments is not a substitute for authorship when someone’s contribution genuinely meets the journal’s authorship criteria — using it that way (sometimes called “honorary” exclusion, the inverse of honorary authorship) is a form of authorship misattribution. It is also not the place for informal personal thanks unconnected to the work itself (family, general moral support) — most journals expect the section to stay professional and tied to the research, though some allow a brief personal note depending on house style; check specific journal conventions rather than assume.
How to Order and Phrase It
A conventional order, where a journal doesn’t specify its own: funding first (often as its own labeled statement), then individual non-author contributors, then institutional/material/technical support. Phrasing should be specific about what each person or entity contributed — “for technical assistance with the flow cytometry analysis” is more useful and more honest than an undifferentiated list of names. Avoid vague blanket phrases like “the authors thank everyone who helped with this study,” which convey nothing and can obscure exactly the information (who did what, and whether they consented to being named) the section exists to capture.
Getting Permission Before Naming Someone
Because a reader may reasonably infer that a named person endorses the paper’s data, methods, and conclusions, obtaining explicit permission from each individual before naming them is standard practice and is required outright by many journals and by ICMJE’s own guidance. This matters most for people acknowledged for intellectual contributions (reviewing a draft, giving critical feedback) rather than purely mechanical support, since intellectual acknowledgment carries the strongest implication of endorsement.
Common Pitfalls
Missing or Incomplete Funding Statements
Omitting a grant number, misstating a funder’s name, or failing to specify which author held which award is a frequent, avoidable correction request. Cross-check the funding statement against the actual award documentation rather than writing it from memory.
Naming Someone Without Permission
Acknowledging a named individual without asking first — especially for a substantive intellectual contribution like reviewing a draft — is both a courtesy failure and, per ICMJE, a documented breach of standard practice.
Using Acknowledgments to Avoid Awarding Authorship
Downgrading someone who meets the journal’s authorship criteria to an acknowledgment, rather than listing them as an author, is a form of contributorship misattribution — the acknowledgments section is not a lower-stakes fallback for a contested authorship decision.
Vague, Undifferentiated Thanks
A list of names with no indication of what each person contributed loses most of the section’s actual informational value — specificity about the nature of each contribution is what makes an acknowledgments section meaningful rather than ceremonial.
A Short Checklist Before Submission
- Is every funding source named completely, with grant/award numbers and the recipient author(s)?
- Has every individually named person given explicit permission to be acknowledged?
- Does the wording specify what each contributor or supporting entity actually provided, rather than a blanket “thanks to everyone”?
- Does anyone named here actually meet the journal’s authorship criteria and belong on the byline instead?
- Does the section follow the target journal’s specific format (a labeled Funding statement, a combined Acknowledgments block, or both)?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between acknowledgments and authorship?
Authorship requires meeting all of a journal’s stated criteria (typically covering substantial contribution to the work, drafting or critical review, final approval, and accountability). Acknowledgments credit people and entities that contributed meaningfully but don’t meet that full bar — see CASRAI’s Acknowledgments Section entry for the detailed boundary rules.
Do I need permission to acknowledge someone by name?
Yes, as standard practice, and it is required outright by many journals — because readers may infer that a named person endorses the paper’s content, get explicit permission before including anyone’s name, particularly for intellectual contributions like reviewing a draft.
Where does the funding statement go?
Placement varies by journal: some fold it into prose acknowledgments, others require a separate, structured Funding field or statement. Follow the specific journal’s submission format rather than defaulting to one style.
Can I acknowledge an institution or facility instead of an individual?
Yes — acknowledging a core facility, archive, or shared resource for material or technical support is standard and does not require the same individual-permission step as naming a person, though it should still specify what was provided.
Is a personal, non-research thank-you (family, friends) appropriate in an acknowledgments section?
Convention varies by journal and field; many expect the section to stay tied to the research itself, while some allow a brief personal note. Check the target journal’s own published examples or author guidelines rather than assume either way.
References
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors,” Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
