Abstract

Large-scale scientific collaborations have become a defining feature of contemporary research. While these consortia enable ambitious, interdisciplinary projects, they also challenge traditional norms of authorship and researcher assessment. This perspective explores the evolving role of authorship in collaborative science and its potential to disrupt the dominance of quantitative research metrics in academic evaluations. Specifically, I discuss the advantages and challenges in using quantitative metrics for research assessments and argue that authorship practices in large research teams can both reduce the clarity and utility of traditional metrics and open new avenues for recognizing diverse and currently underappreciated research contributions. I also propose that reforming authorship norms in research collaborations, for example through clear contribution statements, expanded recognition of research outputs, and transparent attribution, can act as a catalyst for broader systemic change in research assessments. Promoting transparent and fair research authorship practices through norm shifts in large research consortia could help rebalance current evaluation systems, fostering more ethical, equitable, and context-sensitive approaches to recognizing academic labour.