FYI, here’s our research group’s publication policy.

• It’s Oxford policy (and a good idea) that researchers are free to publish any of their own work*. But be aware that we have a contractual obligation to the funding agencies to use project money for project purposes. [* Assuming the work has not been commissioned and paid for by someone else.]
• We strongly encourage everyone to discuss plans for conferences in a group meeting before the work begins. Conference funding is not infinite, and we have a contractual obligation to ensure that our travel money is spent in a way that’s reasonably consistent with the promises we made in the grant proposal.
• To be eligible for editorial help and/or financial support (e.g. publication costs or conference travel), papers should reach the PI and co-Is at least a week before the submission date.  (The draft does not need to be complete or polished at that stage.)
• If a paper has multiple authors, it doesn’t go out the door until all the authors approve it (or waive their right).  The final version (or what is reasonably expected to be the final version) should be sent around at least 1 working day before the submission deadline.

This, of course, raises the difficult question of who should be an author. Needless to say, people have the right to get very upset if they have made a significant contribution and are not listed as authors. When beginning the writing of a paper, the main author should talk to anyone who has even a weak claim to authorship. Authorship decisions must be made openly, and should be made as early as possible: ideally, people should be signed up as the writing commences.
Authorship should be based on these factors:

• Who had the basic idea.
• Who contributed any idea that became an important part of the paper.
• Who collected the data / ran the experiments.
• Who did the analysis.
• Who wrote the paper.
• Major editing can sometimes justify authorship.
• Overall project planning and management (and bringing in research money) is a necessary part of science and deserves some weight, but it isn’t sufficient on its own to justify authorship.
• Any significant contribution to a paper, even if small, deserves an acknowledgment.

Generally, it is better to be overly inclusive rather than deny credit where it is due. However, people should not get authorships for tiny contributions.  The first author is usually the person who writes the paper, but the the real criterion is that the first author is the person who contributed most to the finished product.