ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026
Creating a responsible authorship culture in science: Anchoring authorship practices in principles of transparency, credit, and accountability.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Who deserves credit, who receives credit? A cross-sectional survey on the handling of co-authorship in medical dissertations in Germany.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- A responsible authorship culture is needed and it is a collective responsibility.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- A responsible authorship culture is needed and it is a collective responsibility.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorship remains the primary currency of academic credit and a cornerstone of research integrity, yet current practices often fail to reflect the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of modern science and questionable authorship practices persist. We argue that addressing these shortcomings is a collective responsibility shared by researchers, journals, research funders, scholarly societies, and research institutions. We examined authorship guidelines issued by journals and research institutions and found that their recommendations to researchers are highly variable. We propose that fostering a responsible authorship culture requires a shared, principle-based framework grounded in transparency, credit, and accountability. These three interconnected principles highlight when authorship practices are questionable and offer a framework for constructive reflection on the meaning of authorship. We outline practical ways research leaders can embed these principles into everyday practice by initiating early, inclusive, and fair authorship discussions and ensuring transparent description of contributions. Research institutions have a unique opportunity to inculcate good practices and lead this culture change with harmonized guidance, education, fair conflict resolution, and reform of researcher assessment. Anchoring authorship in transparency, credit, and accountability will strengthen the credibility of individual research, the fairness of recognition systems, and, ultimately, the trustworthiness of science itself.
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.