Abstract：
So-called \"middle authors,\" being neither the first, last, nor corresponding author of an academic paper, have made increasing relative contributions to academic scholarship over recent decades. No work has specifically and explicitly addressed the roles, rights, and responsibilities of middle authors, an authorship position which we believe is particularly vulnerable to abuse via growing phenomena such as paper mills. Responsible middle authorship requires transparent declarations of intellectual and other scientific contributions that journals can and should require of co-authors and established guidelines and criteria to achieve this already exist (ICMJE/CRediT). Although publishers, editors, and authors need to collectively uphold a situation of shared responsibility for appropriate co-authorship, current models have failed science since verification of authorship is impossible, except through blind trust in authors\' statements. During the retraction of a paper, while the opinion of individual co-authors might be noted in a retraction notice, the retraction itself practically erases the relevance of co-author contributions and position/status (first, leading, senior, last, co-corresponding, etc.). Paper mills may have successfully proliferated because individual authors\' roles and responsibilities are not tangibly verifiable and are thus indiscernible. We draw on a historical example of manipulated research to argue that authors and editors should publish publicly available, traceable contributions to the intellectual content of an article-both classical authorship or technical contributions-to maximize both visibility of individual contributions and accountability. To make our article practically more relevant to this journal\'s readership, we reviewed the top 50 Q1 journals in the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology, as ranked by the SJR, to appreciate which journals adopted the ICMJE or CRediT schools of authorship contribution, finding significant variation in adhesion to ICMJE guidelines nor the CRediT criteria and wording of author guidelines.
摘要：
所谓的“中间作者”，“既不是第一个，最后,也不是学术论文的相应作者，近几十年来，学术奖学金的相对贡献越来越大。没有工作明确明确地解决了这些角色，权利,以及中间作者的责任，我们认为作者职位特别容易受到造纸厂等日益严重的现象的滥用。负责任的中间作者要求对知识和其他科学贡献的透明声明，期刊可以并且应该要求共同作者和既定的准则和标准已经存在（ICMJE/CRediT）。虽然出版商,编辑,作者需要集体维护共同责任的情况，以适当的共同作者身份，目前的模型已经失败的科学，因为验证作者身份是不可能的，除了通过对作者陈述的盲目信任。在一篇论文的收回过程中，虽然个别合著者的意见可能会在撤回通知中注明，撤回本身实际上消除了合著者贡献和职位/地位的相关性(首先，领导,高级,最后,共同对应，等。).造纸厂可能已经成功地扩散了，因为个别作者的角色和责任是无法明确核实的，因此是无法辨别的。我们借鉴了一个操纵研究的历史例子，认为作者和编辑应该公开发表，对文章的知识内容的可追溯贡献-无论是经典作者还是技术贡献-最大限度地提高个人贡献和问责制的可见性。为了使我们的文章实际上与本刊的读者群体更相关，我们回顾了生物化学和药理学领域排名前50位的第一季度期刊，根据SJR的排名，了解哪些期刊采用了ICMJE或CRediT作者贡献学校，发现与ICMJE指南或CRediT标准和作者指南的措辞的粘附性存在显著差异。
