AI Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research

This page presents an AI-generated summary of a published research paper. The original authors did not write or review this article. [See full disclosure ↓]

Publishing process signals: MODERATE — reflects the venue and review process. — venue and review process.

Principles-based authorship guidance is proposed for science

Three professionals of diverse backgrounds sit around a white table in a modern office setting, collaborating over a laptop and documents, with engaged body language and professional attire.
Research area:Engineering ethicsAcademic integrity and plagiarismAccountability

What the study found

The authors found that authorship guidelines from journals and research institutions vary widely. They argue that a shared, principle-based framework grounded in transparency, credit, and accountability is needed to support responsible authorship practices.

Why the authors say this matters

The study suggests that addressing questionable authorship practices is a collective responsibility shared by researchers, journals, funders, scholarly societies, and institutions. The authors conclude that anchoring authorship in transparency, credit, and accountability could strengthen the credibility of individual research, the fairness of recognition systems, and the trustworthiness of science.

What the researchers tested

The authors examined authorship guidelines issued by journals and research institutions. They also proposed a framework for responsible authorship and described practical ways research leaders and institutions could embed it into everyday practice.

What worked and what didn't

The review found that existing guidance is highly variable. The authors propose that early, inclusive, and fair authorship discussions, together with transparent description of contributions, are practical ways to support better practice.

What to keep in mind

The abstract does not describe experimental testing of the proposed framework. It also does not provide detailed limitations beyond noting that current guidance is variable and that the paper is a proposal for practice change.

Key points

  • Authorship guidelines from journals and research institutions were found to be highly variable.
  • The authors propose a shared framework based on transparency, credit, and accountability.
  • They argue that addressing questionable authorship practices is a collective responsibility.
  • The paper recommends early, inclusive, and fair authorship discussions.
  • The abstract does not describe experimental testing of the proposed framework.

Disclosure

Research title:
Principles-based authorship guidance is proposed for science
Authors:
Véronique Kiermer, Sofia Adams, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Yensi Flores Bueso, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Joerg Heber, Mohammad Hosseini, Ana Marušić, Beau Nielsen, Magdalena Skipper, Geeta Swamy, Susan M. Wolf
Institutions:
University of Pennsylvania, American Medical Association, University of Washington, University College Cork, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Institute for Biomedicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Duke University, University of Minnesota Medical Center
Publication date:
2026-03-11
OpenAlex record:
View
AI provenance: This post was generated by OpenAI. The original authors did not write or review this post.