Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41811430›Full record

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.

Véronique Kiermer, Sofia Adams, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Yensi Flores Bueso, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Joerg Heber, Mohammad Hosseini, Ana Marušić, Beau Nielsen, Magdalena Skipper and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Véronique KiermerPublic Library of Science, San Francisco, CA 94103.ORCID 0000-0001-8771-7239
Sofia AdamsAnnenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.ORCID 0009-0000-7549-2749
Kirsten Bibbins-DomingoJournal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of the American Medical Association Network, Chicago, IL 60611.ORCID 0000-0002-8962-0622
Yensi Flores BuesoCancer Research, University College Cork, Cork T12 XF98, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-2118-2195
Kathleen Hall JamiesonAnnenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.ORCID 0000-0002-4167-3688
Joerg HeberLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720.ORCID 0000-0002-6370-4254
Mohammad HosseiniDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60611.ORCID 0000-0002-2385-985X
Ana MarušićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health and Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split 21000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-6272-0917
Beau NielsenNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC 20001.
Magdalena SkipperNature, London N1 9XW, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8707-8369
Geeta K SwamyDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710.ORCID 0000-0001-5092-6993
Susan M WolfUniversity of Minnesota Law School and Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN 55455.ORCID 0000-0001-9547-2200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AuthorshipPublishingSocial ResponsibilityAcademiaHumansResearch Personnelaccountabilityauthorshipcredittransparency

Identifiers

PMID41811430
PMCPMC13012122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.