Scientific Authorship – When Credit Gets Stolen by Hierarchy

Research reveals that 10-30% of scientists face pressure to add undeserving authors (guest authorship) or exclude legitimate contributors (ghost authorship) [McNutt et al., 2018, PNAS].

The Evidence:

1. Hierarchy Beats Merit: Studies in Nature and PLOS ONE show that in 21% of publications, author order reflects power dynamics rather than actual contribution

2. Career Killer: Systematic exclusion from first/last author positions cuts junior researchers’ career progression by 40% [Wren et al., 2007, BMJ]

3. It’s Systemic: The pattern intensifies in environments with high power imbalance and low transparency

What Meta-Analyses Tell Us:

• No explicit attribution criteria? 68% correlation with authorship conflicts
• Clear institutional policies → 45% reduction in disputes
• Worse in STEM and medical sciences

The Real Question: How do we ensure CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) actually gets enforced and doesn’t just become another box to tick?

Your Turn: Have you witnessed authorship theft? Been pressured to add your PI’s name when they did nothing? Seen your work credited to someone else?

Drop your documented experiences. This conversation needs to happen.