Authorship Without Writing: Large Language Models and the Senior Author Analogy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05390v1
• Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 10:11:56 GMT
• Title: Authorship Without Writing: Large Language Models and the Senior Author Analogy
• Abstract summary: The use of large language models (LLMs) in bioethical, scientific, and medical writing remains controversial.<n>We argue that LLM use is analogous to a form of senior authorship.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The use of large language models (LLMs) in bioethical, scientific, and medical writing remains controversial. While there is broad agreement in some circles that LLMs cannot count as authors, there is no consensus about whether and how humans using LLMs can count as authors. In many fields, authorship is distributed among large teams of researchers, some of whom, including paradigmatic senior authors who guide and determine the scope of a project and ultimately vouch for its integrity, may not write a single word. In this paper, we argue that LLM use (under specific conditions) is analogous to a form of senior authorship. On this view, the use of LLMs, even to generate complete drafts of research papers, can be considered a legitimate form of authorship according to the accepted criteria in many fields. We conclude that either such use should be recognized as legitimate, or current criteria for authorship require fundamental revision. AI use declaration: GPT-5 was used to help format Box 1. AI was not used for any other part of the preparation or writing of this manuscript.

Related papers

• PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers on Overleaf [51.79108552674703]
  We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments.<n>PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing.<n>In a user study, 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T22:17:15Z)
• Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution [18.055643489884552]
  Authorship misattribution can have profound consequences in real life.<n>Standard evaluation measures for authorship attribution systems do not explicitly account for this notion of fairness.<n>We introduce a simple measure, Misattribution Unfairness Index (MAUIk), which is based on how often authors are ranked in the top k for texts they did not write.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T23:28:24Z)
• GPT Editors, Not Authors: The Stylistic Footprint of LLMs in Academic Preprints [0.0]
  The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in late 2022 has impacted academic writing, threatening credibility, and causing institutional uncertainty.<n>We seek to determine the degree to which LLMs are used to generate critical text as opposed to being used for editing, such as checking for grammar errors or inappropriate phrasing.<n>We find that LLM-attributed language is not predictive of stylistic segmentation, suggesting that when authors use LLMs, they do so uniformly, reducing the risk of hallucinations being introduced into academic preprints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T22:44:27Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• A Bayesian Approach to Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Authorship Attribution [57.309390098903]
  Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Large Language Models (LLMs) with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations offer a promising alternative. Our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T04:14:23Z)
• Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges [16.35265384114857]
  The rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have blurred the lines between human and machine authorship.<n>This literature review serves a roadmap for researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the state of the art in this rapidly evolving field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:58:49Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? [16.35265384114857]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T03:22:02Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• PaperCard for Reporting Machine Assistance in Academic Writing [48.33722012818687]
  ChatGPT, a question-answering system released by OpenAI in November 2022, has demonstrated a range of capabilities that could be utilised in producing academic papers. This raises critical questions surrounding the concept of authorship in academia. We propose a framework we name "PaperCard", a documentation for human authors to transparently declare the use of AI in their writing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T14:28:04Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.