This paper describes a process - and the context in which it was carried out - to define a form to support transparency in authorship decisions.  The nuance of the host and center dynamics is particularly well-articulated, showing the importance of a trusted body (in this case, the EWWG) in hosting difficult conversations.  Also of general interest is the commentary on the impact of virtual workspaces on mediating open discussions and iterating toward a solution, particularly on enabling interactions among people located throughout power structures. 

The workflow diagram clearly illustrates the iterative, reflective process and the interactions between the EWWG and the center-wide group.   The authorship form is clear, as are the consistent and intentional use of terms: main authors and potential co-authors.

I would have liked to see a pilot of the form at the center, to demonstrate its utility in application.  I'd like to learn how it is being adopted: are center researchers using the form because it works?  Has the center decided to require or strongly encourage use of the form?  The authors mention the broad research topics carried out in the center - how does this impact use of the form?

I would also have liked to see more guidance on contribution guidance.  While it is important to be flexible to accomodate the broad research purview of the center, it would be helpful for adoption purposes to imbue more substance in the definitions of main and potential authors.  The authors mention the CRediT taxonomy, but why not integrate this more deeply into the authorship defiinition process?  Did the iiterative process find opportunities to improve the taxonomy?

Overall,  the paper is clearly written, describes a well-carried out research project, and shares a product that has the potential to advance and improve how the research community manages authorship.  I can't wait to see how the authorship form is used. 

I apologize for the lateness of this review. I was not very busy when I accepted the invitation to review, but in the intervening time, several commitments came up, preventing me from submitting this review on time.

General comments

This paper has the potential to make a significant contribution to changing the way that authorship decisions are handled across disciplines throughout not just science but all of adademia. This process is suggested at the right time in our culture, when the conversation about increasing equity and inclusion is prominent in many institutions. 

I like the way this paper is structured, using its own publishing process as a transparent test case to present how the co-authorship form would work. I can envision myself adopting this for future authorship discussions for my own publications. Thank you for doing this work and submitting it for publication!

Specific comments

I do not have any specific comments or concerns about the methodology or structure of this paper. I have a few technical corrections and suggestions, listed below.

Technical corrections

Throughout the document: It was unclear to me the reason for italicizing your key words. This seemed unnecessary.

Line 81-82: I recommend splitting this into two sentences to improve clarity: "This EWWG aims to ensure the well-being and fairness of the INAR community. It consists of staff members. . . ."

Line 90 et al.: Include date of last access for all Internet citations.

Line 94: This is your first in-text reference to supplementary material. 1) It was unclear to me why your supplementary materials were labeled as "SI." 2) Consider re-ordering your supplements so that they are referred to in the text in the same order as they appears in the supplement.

Line 99: Consider changing "once mixed" to "rearranged once."

Lines 194-195: I had to read the sentence beginning, "This avoids that authorship. . . .,"  several times. It is awkward and would benefit from rewording.

Line 212: Change "focus" to "focused" for grammatical consistency with the other listed adjectives.

Line 231: Change "play" to "played" so that it will be in past tense.

Line 242: Delete the word "a" between "in" and "multiple".

Line 257: Change "impact on those lower" to "impact those who are lower".

Line 263: Delete "on".

Line 263: Delete "However," and capitalize "Ultimately".

Line 305: Change "till" to "until".

Figure 1: I like this flowchart, but the way it is structured, I thought at first that the AWG was a subset or subordinant to the EWWG. Consider restructuring this flowchart so that the AWG sits in a third column.

SI 1: In the Overview table, consider deleting "coin toss, a chess, tournament, etc." I feel like including these trivializes or makes light of the process. It is also inconsistent with every other mention of randomization method where only last-name alphabetical is mentioned.

SI 1: You defined the acronym for CRediT taxomony in section 3.2 of the main paper. However, SI 1 is referred to in section 2 of the paper, leading readers to perhaps encounter that term for the first time in SI 1. Please define that acronym upon first usage in the supplementary material as well as in the paper.

SI 3: It might have been interesting to read the results of this survey in addition to seeing the survey form.