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
Review
. 2026 Jan 29.
doi: 10.1186/s12915-026-02521-x. Online ahead of print.

Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress

April Robin Martinig  1   2   3 , Spenser L P Burk  4 , Szymon M Drobniak  5   6 , Isabella Perry  7 , Kyle Morrison  5 , Megan Petersohn  7 , Patrice Pottier  5 , Shinichi Nakagawa  5   8 , Pietro Pollo  5 , Lorenzo Ricolfi  5 , Coralie Williams  5 , Ayumi Mizuno  8   9 , Aimee Chhen  7 , Jesse Tam  5 , Yefeng Yang  5 , Julia de Jong  10 , Alberto Ceccacci  11 , Sandra Cuadros  7 , Malgorzata Lagisz  5   8
Affiliations
Free article
Review

Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress

April Robin Martinig et al. BMC Biol. .
Free article

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.

Keywords: Accountability; Coauthorship; Collaborative; Contributorship; Credit; Publishing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: All authors consent to publication of this study. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Heffner AG. Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Soc Stud Sci. 1979;9(3):377–84.
    1. Albert T, Wager E, on behalf of COPE Council. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. COPE Rep. 2003:32–4. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1.
    1. Strange K. Authorship: why not just toss a coin? Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2008;295(3):C567–75.
    1. Bozeman B, Youtie J. Trouble in paradise: problems in academic research co-authoring. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(6):1717–43.
    1. Gaeta TJ. Authorship: law and order. Acad Emerg Med. 1999;6:297–301.

LinkOut - more resources