If research was done and paper was mostly written at institute A, but then it finally got accepted while the author moved to institute B, say, 3 years later. Should the affiliation of the author be

  1. Only Institute A: because 95% of the support was from here, and work was done here
  2. Both Institute A and B: in some sense, both institutes supported the work
  3. Only Institute B: this is where the author is affiliated at the moment

related: Changing affiliation on publication

2 Answers 2


There are no fixed rules but I would opt for your option (2). The affiliation is intended to aid in facilitating contact with the author but is of course useful to a department to show count the paper as a product from that institute. By listing your former address first indicating that that is where you did most of the work and then adding the second as present address provides the best and useful information for all parts. Option (1) means your present location is not disclosed which is a missed opportunity to locate you. Option (3) has the disadvantage that your former department are not associated with the work you performed there. So although all are acceptable, (2) would be the best (most polite and useful) way in your situation.

  • Is there any actual examples of using option (2)?
    – Thomas Lee
    Commented Feb 21, 2015 at 16:27
  • I am also curious to see examples of option (2), where the dual-affiliation refers to one previous and one current institution rather than two current institutions. I usually see authors choose option (3) at the expense of their previous employer. (In Scandinavia, as an example, universities typically receive government funding per research article, so the expense of not listing one's former institution can be very real, indeed.)
    – user38309
    Commented Oct 12, 2015 at 8:02

Firstly, some journals have specific rules about what counts as an affiliation. So if the journal has such rules you should follow them. These rules are variable, and I have seen all three of the options included. In my opinion, affiliation should match your current contact information and, on top of that, match any affiliation where you conducted the research, if possible. Note this means options (2) is best. If the journal has a rule precluding option (2), be sure to thank any institution you don't put as an affiliation in the acknowledgment section. All universities deserve credit for what they contributed. That said, in my experience the majority of people in this situation (not a huge sample size), use the affiliation that either matches their current contact information or their contact information from when they submitted the paper. However, this doesn't mean it is what they should do.

  • 4
    I fully disagree! This might result in a major uproar since the funding and research opportunities were given by A.
    – OBu
    Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 20:06
  • 4
    It's one thing to down vote; it's another thing to vote to delete. Strongly disagreeing with an answer is not grounds for deleting it. Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 20:46
  • 1
    This is a good answer. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29
  • 2
    Your current institution is the one you should have most allegiance to. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 3:34
  • 2
    Just let me clarify I did not vote to delete the answer, it is valid, but I disagree ;).
    – OBu
    Commented Feb 15, 2014 at 15:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .