All articles tagged with #authorship
Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller used AI to draft an op-ed critiquing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, prompting praise from some in finance for the clever use of AI while fueling a broader debate about AI-assisted writing and author credibility; the WSJ defended AI as a tool that can reflect genuine opinion, highlighting policy nuances versus the FT’s explicit AI-use ban, in a wider clash over AI in journalism.
An analysis of Nature Index data (2015–2024) shows the share of one- and two-author papers fell from 10.8% to 7.1%, while papers with 3–50 authors rose, indicating a shift toward large, multi-author teams across the natural and health sciences; funding incentives, infrastructure needs, and increasing research specialization are driving this trend, with patterns varying by country and field (Japan showing relative stability, while the US, UK, Germany and South Korea show declines in small-team output).
Retraction Watch reports that Raghabendra Kumar Mahato, a second-year medical student in Nepal, runs a WhatsApp network of about 1,000 researchers producing large volumes of conference abstracts and journal papers. Several abstracts coauthored by Mahato have been accepted at major conferences such as the American Heart Association and ESMO. Critics say the setup resembles a paper mill and that authorship can be traded for presenting or publication fees, while Mahato denies selling authorship and says the aim is collaborative research; AHA and ESMO say they are reviewing the submissions.
Retraction Watch’s weekend reads flag privacy leaks in most arXiv preprints (like passwords and GPS coordinates), note that U.S. scrutiny of foreign research influenced researchers such as George Church to decline authorship on a recent commentary, and report 28 cases of misconduct in China. The digest also surveys a broad trail of integrity issues across academia—from retractions and questionable peer review to AI-related publishing debates—complemented by the site’s expanding databases and appeals for support.
A Scientometrics analysis of about 1.75 million papers (2016–2020) found that roughly 30% of papers by Chinese authors had multiple corresponding authors in 2020, far above the global average, likely driven by an evaluation system that rewarded these roles for promotions and funding. Since 2020–2021, China has reformed incentives—ending cash rewards, clamping down on gift authorship, and requiring explicit author contributions—toward broader, contribution-based assessment, with reforms not intended to reduce international collaboration.
Three of the five regional winners of the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize are facing allegations of using AI to craft their stories, with Pangram flagging Jamir Nazir’s The Serpent in the Grove as AI-generated and other entries as AI-generated or AI-assisted. Granta and the Commonwealth Foundation defend the integrity of the judging, note trust in unpublished fiction, and have added disclaimers to the winning stories; AI-detection tools are deemed imperfect, highlighting broader tensions over AI’s role in creative writing, including a judge accused of AI-assisted marketing copy.
John Scalzi offers ten reflections on AI in February 2026, arguing he won’t use AI to write, that AI won’t replace him, that the public is weary of AI, and that he will continue to support human artists; he predicts AI will persist in some form but likely in a diminished role, highlights ethical concerns around training data and provenance, notes AI’s integration into common tools, and concludes that fans crave uniquely human creativity—so artists should avoid ceding their art to machines when possible.
A Bengaluru economist discovers her study was stolen and published by others, with authorship slots allegedly sold on Telegram for roughly $165–$200. The misappropriated paper, later indexed by a different journal, prompts plagiarism concerns when editors find it nearly identical to her rejected draft. The incident underscores how paper mills operate, the push for retractions, and ongoing investigations by publishers, even as some listed authors deny involvement.