In biology, as in medicine, the authorship, and author order is determinated by  the IMCJE, aslo known as vancouver style. The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or de- sign of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpre- tation of data for the work; AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for im- portant intellectual content; AND

3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investi- gated and resolved. 

The authors order is determinated by the grade of participation

In biology, as in medicine, the authorship, and author order is determinated by  the IMCJE, aslo known as vancouver style. The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or de- sign of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpre- tation of data for the work; AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for im- portant intellectual content; AND

3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investi- gated and resolved. 

The authors order is determinated by the grade of participation

 Dear Tyler Chafin,

Incidentally, just today I happened to come across an article on the benefits of co-authorship.I am giving here under the link to the article. Hope it be helpful. 

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/confronting-suspicion-and-misconceptions-co-authorship

Best Wishes,

Suja R. Nair

 Dear Tyler Chafin,

Incidentally, just today I happened to come across an article on the benefits of co-authorship.I am giving here under the link to the article. Hope it be helpful. 

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/confronting-suspicion-and-misconceptions-co-authorship

Best Wishes,

Suja R. Nair

Excellent question Tyler.

@Maria presented one official version (there are many). I, like most others heed these guidelines. In real life all is not so straightforward and I thought it worthy to elaborate on my feelings about the topic and how we deal with it in my group.

In my experience, authorship and order have as much (or sometimes more) to do with local tradition (as perpetuated by the PI) as adherence to a scientific ideal. I have been in your position, have way too many mentions in Acknowledgements and even had part of my thesis work taken by a two different collaborating professors and published (albeit with my name on it) without my knowledge. It is a jungle out there, but I believe it is getting better and we must see to it that it continues to improve.

While I love to collaborate and gladly do so when invited, in my own research I prefer to do things "in house". This means taking the time to learn new techniques (instead of farming out via collaboration) as needed. I am not saying this is better, or efficient - just how I prefer to do it. But even here, determining authorship can be a challenge. My philosophy is that if you have had significant input, you are considered an author. This includes technicians, undergraduates, etc. I have also worked in groups where this was NOT the case - even when staff were contributing real science - not just washing dishes, preparing solutions/media or performing assays. I strongly encourage my students to work independently and master what is needed for their projects. This generally has the side effect of reducing the number of authors. Sure before being established there was pressure to heed tradition and history and as a young faculty member, navigate clear of confrontation. All at the expense of additional authors. Now I bring up authorship issues before work is begun. You mention you are preparing your manuscripts. You may find that authorship choices are much more limited at this stage than before work began.

Authorship order? Practically, outside of first or last, there is not much to discuss. Ok, ok there are algorithms that include author order as an independent variable to calculate an "impact" in an attempt to quantify research ability. Still, first or last should be where you are aiming. All other publications you get via collaborations are only gravy. When it comes to graduate students, they MUST be given projects in which their work (if performed properly) is deserving of first authorship. This is a very important responsibility of the thesis advisor. Post-doctoral fellows who come with their own funding have a different investment. They most likely will want to be be first AND corresponding author (or at least co-corresponding authors). For me, this is not a problem as long as they do the work and carry the burden necessary for this distinction.

In my group, most projects have a lead person who usually winds up first on the author line and contributing author (last position) who stands for the overall integrity of the work and whose expertise guides the entire process. Occasionally collaborative efforts in separate laboratories require shared first, or last authorship. My advice is to discuss this before doing the work. Still this does not guarantee a smooth publication process. In my group, the first author generally takes the lead in writing and managing the process (in addition to performing a majority of the science). If one does not wish for there to be too many authors, a simple solution is to just do the work yourself.

What about the case where work is done in another group or using another group's materials? These materials are almost certainly paid for by some research funding. Most ethical guidelines state clearly that funding without intellectual contribution is not a justifiable basis for authorship. Recognition of these collaborations are most often relegated to Acknowledgements. However, if the work could have been done in any other way - then why hasn't it? Such situations are usually best avoided if possible. If unavoidable, clear communication before working is still the best policy. Large research centers are generally exceptions to the above. Here the funding is at least in part to stimulate collaboration and facilitate research for a larger group of scientists. Authorship for this reason alone is not justified.

A final comment on using material from other laboratories. If the material has been published (e.g., an expression system) there is no obvious obligation to include the supplier as an author in the new work. In most cases, it is their obligation to provide it (stipulated by funding and publication regulations). Still communication and agreement before actual work starts, only makes sense. I know researchers whose careers have been built on a sample, technique, or program long after the descriptive publications have come out. This is not the optimal way to build a career or practice science.

... sorry for the long windedness. Hope this helps.

Thank you for the response! I've had a meeting with my PI about it, and it doesn't sound like there should be any conflicts.