Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2023 Nov 12;16(1):329.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-023-06597-4.

The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process

Affiliations
Editorial

The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process

Russell Seth Martins et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Authorship determination on a research article remains a largely subjective process. Existing guidelines on authorship taxonomy lack objectivity and are more useful in determining who deserves authorship rather than determining the order of authors. To promote best practices in authorship taxonomy, we developed an authorship rubric that provides a fair, objective, and transparent means of crediting authorship. We christened this tool the "CalculAuthor". The following steps are to be undertaken to create a scoring system based on the requirements of the projects: determining creditable criteria, assigning credit weightages, deciding levels of contribution, determining each author's contribution, calculating authorship scores and ranking. These must be performed by or in close collaboration with the primary investigator (PI), with conflicts being resolved at the PI's discretion. All team members should be informed about the authorship determination process early in the project and their agreement regarding its use must be obtained. While the CalculAuthor was developed to be used in medical research, its customizability enables it to be employed in any field of academia. We recommend that the CalculAuthor be piloted within institutions before its mainstream adoption, and any institution-specific factors should be considered to make the process more efficient and suitable.

Keywords: Academic research; Authorship; Taxonomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Fleming N. The authorship rows that sour scientific collaborations. Nature. 2021;594(7863):459–462. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-01574-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Jamieson KH, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(11):2557–2560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council. COPE Discussion Document: authorship. September 2019. 2020.
    1. Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. J Informet. 2012;6(4):700–711. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008. - DOI
    1. Weber M. The effects of listing authors in alphabetical order: a review of the empirical evidence. Res Eval. 2018;27(3):238–245. doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvy008. - DOI

Publication types