ReviewBMC biology2026
Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.
Review in BMC biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic map of generative AI guidelines and reporting in ecology and evolutionary biology: towards the framework of AI disclosure for Improved Transparency (AIdIT).Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Embryos are largely understudied in a representative sample of journals in conservation physiology.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classifying and ranking academic authorship lists is complex in practice, despite existing frameworks, and can lead to conflict. We propose Dragon Kill Points, adapted from multiplayer gaming, to track contributions throughout a project's lifecycle. Dragon Kill Points is based on five principles: granularity, responsibility, equity, autonomy, and transparency (GREAT). These ensure detailed task records, clear criteria, equitable rules, contributor flexibility, and shared documentation. By applying Dragon Kill Points, teams can reduce disputes, promote inclusivity, and recognise all contributions, including middle authorship. This scalable system offers a practical solution for managing authorship in collaborative research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.