ABOUT

The problem
 

Despite decades of discussion and the development of strict guidelines, authorship abuse (including coercion tactics, honorary, guest or ghost authorships) remains a problem and may represent the most prevalent and tolerated form of scientific misconduct.

Apart from hurting academic relationships, inappropriate authorship damages the institution of science in the following ways:

 

  1. It distorts the associated professional benefits

  2. It distorts the ethical responsibilities associated with authorship

So far, solutions have focussed on greater transparency and more detailed information describing each author’s role. Some journals now include an “Author contributions” section, but these disclosures tend to be vague, qualitative and almost impossible to verify.

Most importantly, the underlying problem remains unaddressed: who is responsible for deciding and declaring author contributions?
 

 
Our solution
 

We believe that letting all authors have their say in the matter is the best way to solve problems of authorship.

There is simply too much at stake for decisions about scientific authorship to be left to a single person.

Authorwise takes advantage of the wisdom of crowds so that authors can get access to quantitative, democratic and transparent estimates of their own contributions.

 

Each author simply evaluates their own contributions (and optionally those of their peers or collaborators) according to the CRediT taxonomy using our simple interface.

Authorwise transforms these team-derived evaluations into quantitative estimates of author contributions within four broad categories. 

Although individual responses are biased by each author's subjective experience, aggregating team-derived results leads to better contribution estimates, which are used to:

 

  • Estimate the total contribution of each author to the study

  • Suggest a fair linear author list

  • Suggest an author contribution statement

Ultimately our goal is to replace the traditional linear author list whose cryptic nature leaves evaluators with little alternative than to count the number of first or last author publications as a measure of scientific achievement.

Towards this goal, we provide a dedicated page for each manuscript or article with visual summaries of aggregated results.

 

Authors are encouraged to share a link to these contributions in the final version of their manuscript, with colleagues or on social media.

Join us in pioneering the next step in open authorship now!