Addressing authorship dilemmas in scholarly publications: a solution-oriented study

In scholarly publications, determining authorship- and the order of authors' names- has become increasingly challenging. This is partly due to the evolving landscape of multidisciplinary teams, which can involve numerous contributors. Relying solely on descriptive and consensus-based qualitative approaches can lead to uncertainty. The dilemma also extends to cases where a valid contributor may simply receive an acknowledgement for his or her contribution, rather than being listed as a joint author. Trusting authors to adhere to moral standards when deciding authorship and acknowledgments can result in conflicts that are difficult for readers to navigate. This poses accountability challenges, especially when dealing with a substantial number of authors. This study proposes a simplified and transparent quantitative approach to address these concerns. The methodology is based on two key parameters: first, the evaluation of the time invested by each contributor in the publication; and, second, the normalized assessment of the value of their time. Through a contribution analysis utilizing these parameters, a predetermined threshold is established to define authorship. Contributors falling below this threshold can be recognized in some other way, for example, in acknowledgments for their valuable input. While the approach proposed may be more applicable in some disciplines and higher education systems than others, it does offer a quantitative foundation to support qualitative discussions among potential authors, helping them reach a consensus on authorship and authorship order without conflict. This method seeks to prevent injustices and ensure that all contributors have a voice, regardless of their power and influence.