A co-author not responding does not entitle you to submit or approve on their behalf. Escalate in writing over three stages — a direct request with a deadline, a formal notice copying every author, then a request to their institution — keep a dated record, and tell the editor the position. Removal needs written agreement or an institutional ruling.
Why a co-author not responding stops the whole submission
The ICMJE recommendations set out four criteria for authorship, and the third is approval of the version to be published. Final approval is a co-author's recorded agreement that the version in front of them is the one they are willing to be accountable for.
As corresponding author you speak for everyone listed, so telling a journal that the manuscript is ready to be considered implies that every author has seen and approved it. Confirming that while a co-author has not read the text is a false statement about the record, and it is the kind of statement that surfaces later as a correction or an authorship dispute.
Work out which situation you are in before you escalate
A co-author not responding is not one problem but four, and the first move differs in each. Match your case to the table below, then run the three-stage sequence set out in the next section.
| Situation | What you observe | First move |
|---|---|---|
| Silent but reachable | Delivered, no reply | Stage 1 with a named date |
| Unreachable or moved | Bounce, auto-reply, no current listing | Try the affiliation on their ORCID record, then stage 3 early |
| Objects to the content | Disputes data or conclusions | A scientific disagreement, not a stall |
| Wants off the paper | Asks to be removed | Get it in writing, then tell the editor |
The three-stage contact sequence, with the wording to send
Send every stage by email, with the exact version attached. An unrecorded corridor agreement is not evidence of approval.
| Stage | When | Sent to | Deadline given |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Direct request | Day 0 | The co-author only | 7 working days |
| 2. Formal notice | Day 8 or later | The co-author, copying all authors | 10 working days |
| 3. Institutional route | After stage 2 lapses | Head of department or research integrity office | None set for them |
Stage 1: the direct request with a decision date
Subject: Approval needed by [date] — final version of [short title]
Dear [Name],
Attached is the version of [full title], dated [date], that I intend to submit to [journal].
Please reply by [date, at least seven working days ahead] with one of the following:
1. I approve this version for submission.
2. I approve subject to the changes listed below.
3. I do not approve, for the reasons below.
Approval means you agree to be listed as an author of this version and accountable for it, in line with the ICMJE criteria. If I have not heard by [date], I will send a formal follow-up copying all co-authors.
[Your name], corresponding author
Stage 2: the formal notice, copied to every author
Subject: Formal follow-up — approval outstanding for [short title]
Dear [Name], copied to all co-authors,
On [date] I sent you the final version of [full title] and asked for approval by [date]. I have had no reply.
The manuscript cannot be submitted until every listed author has approved it. Please reply by [date, at least ten working days ahead] to approve, approve with changes, or decline.
If I have no response by then, I will write to [department] for assistance in contacting you, and will tell the journal that approval is outstanding. No author will be added or removed without written agreement.
[Your name], corresponding author
Copying the group is not a reprimand. It moves the problem to a shared record, and puts it in front of colleagues who may hold a contact route you do not have.
Stage 3: ask the institution to help you make contact
Subject: Request for assistance contacting [Name] regarding a manuscript
Dear [Head of Department or Research Integrity Office],
I am the corresponding author of [full title]. [Name] is listed as a co-author and contributed [brief factual description]. I wrote on [date] and [date] asking for approval of the final version and have had no response. Both messages are attached.
I am not raising an allegation and not asking you to arbitrate. I am asking whether your office can confirm a current contact address for [Name], or advise me how to proceed.
The manuscript remains unsubmitted and the author list will not change without written agreement.
[Your name and affiliation]
Keep stage 3 narrow: you are requesting contact assistance, not an investigation. Wording it as an accusation turns a request for contact details into a formal complaint, which is not what you are asking for.
Keep a contact record the editor and the institution can read
Log every attempt in one file and keep the original messages unedited.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Date sent | Date and time zone |
| Channel and address | Email, postal address, or office written to |
| Version referenced | File name and date of the manuscript attached |
| Delivery evidence | Bounce, read receipt, or a note that neither came |
| Deadline given | The date stated in the message |
| Response | Full text, or none as at [date] |
| Action taken | What you did next, and when |
What to disclose to the editor at each stage
An editor told at submission that approval is being chased has a far smaller problem than one who learns it at proof stage.
| Point | Tell the editor | Do not |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 running, unsubmitted | Nothing yet | Submit while approval is outstanding without saying so |
| Stage 2 sent | If you submit before approval arrives, say in the cover letter that one author's approval is outstanding | Sign a blanket declaration that all authors approved |
| Stage 3 sent | Who is unreachable, the dates you wrote, and that the institution has been asked | Ask the editor to adjudicate authorship |
| They ask to be removed | Forward the written request and ask how to document it | Resubmit a quietly shortened author list |
| Already under review | Disclose immediately, in writing | Wait for the decision first |
Your cover letter to the editor needs one plain sentence: all authors have approved this version except [Name], whose approval was requested on [date] and [date]; a contact record is available on request.
When removing a co-author is legitimate, and when it is not
Removal is legitimate when it is agreed or determined, and not otherwise. Silence is not agreement.
| Ground for removal | Legitimate | What is required |
|---|---|---|
| They ask in writing to be removed | Yes | Their request, plus agreement from the remaining authors |
| Everyone, including them, agrees they never met the criteria | Yes | Written agreement from every author |
| An institutional determination rules on the list | Yes | The written finding, sent to the journal |
| They are slow, or you have fallen out | No | Not a ground at all |
| They disagree with the conclusions | No | Resolve it, or record the dissent |
| No reply, and you want to submit | No | Escalate and disclose; do not delete the name |
Withholding approval because the analysis changed since they last saw it is a scientific objection, not a stall. If a contribution has genuinely left the paper the list can change, but that is agreed in writing, not announced.
An editor is not in a position to determine who deserves authorship. COPE guidance directs unresolved authorship disputes to the authors' institutions, which hold the records and the authority. An editor keeps the record accurate and any change to it documented.
If a co-author has died or cannot consent, the paper can still proceed
A deceased co-author stays on the author list if they met the authorship criteria. Tell the editor what happened, confirm that the remaining authors take responsibility for the final version, and ask whether the journal wants a footnote. The same applies where a co-author has lost capacity.
What Directive Publications publishes on authorship changes, and what it does not
Directive Publications does not publish a standalone authorship-change policy page. That is a gap, and saying so is more useful than sending you to a page that does not exist. What we do publish is Publication Ethics and Research Integrity, and our editorial policies align with the COPE Core Practices.
Submission here is through the form on our Submit page; keep your contact log, say in the cover letter that you can supply it, and send it to the editorial office by email if asked. Peer review here is double-blind, so raise an approval problem with the editorial office in writing rather than assuming it will reach the right person through the review process. We do not adjudicate who should be an author; an unresolved authorship question belongs with the authors' institutions.
Prevent the next one: agree the author list in writing when the study starts, and collect a second contact route for every co-author. Before stage 1, read Publication Ethics, then The Corresponding Author's Responsibilities, Who Counts as an Author? CRediT and Authorship Explained and Authorship Disputes: How to Prevent and Resolve Them.
Updated 3 October 2026: We corrected how manuscripts are submitted: through the form on our Submit page, not by email.