Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress

2025 · doi:10.32942/x2w05k
preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text ⓘ

The paper studied how to reduce authorship conflicts and documentation problems in collaborative research by proposing a transparent contributorship tracking system called Dragon Kill Points. Using a conceptual framework rather than a clinical dataset, it describes a lifecycle-based method that assigns and updates contribution records using five principles (GREAT: granularity, responsibility, equity, autonomy, transparency). The key idea is to allow more detailed, fair, and challengeable authorship determinations by continuously sharing contribution information with the whole team. A major limitation is that the paper presents the framework and rationale without reporting empirical outcomes or validation of its effectiveness in specific research settings. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

The concept of authorship, while straightforward in theory, proves to be remarkably complex in practice. While existing frameworks provide a foundation for classifying and ranking authorship roles, conflicts still arise when contributions are ambiguous or poorly documented. To address these issues, we propose Dragon Kill Points, adapted from multiplayer gaming, which tracks individual contributions to projects throughout their lifecycle. Dragon Kill Points is built around five key principles: granularity, responsibility, equity, autonomy, and transparency (GREAT). Granularity ensures detailed documentation of tasks, preventing underrepresentation of individual contributions. Responsibility is maintained by setting clear authorship criteria from the outset, allowing contributors to know how their work will be recognised. Equity ensures authorship rules apply to every team member, flattening hierarchies and highlighting ghost or gift authorship. Autonomy allows contributors to challenge or change their authorship position based on their contributions as the project progresses. Finally, transparency fosters trust by continuously sharing contribution records with the entire team. Through Dragon Kill Points, researchers can reduce conflicts, create more inclusive authorship practices, and acknowledge the true value of middle authorship positions. This system offers a flexible, scalable approach to managing authorship across various contexts, providing a solution to the complex challenges of collaboration.
Full text 2,504 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

The concept of authorship, while straightforward in theory, proves to be remarkably complex in practice. While existing frameworks provide a foundation for classifying and ranking authorship roles, conflicts still arise when contributions are ambiguous or poorly documented. To address these issues, we propose Dragon Kill Points, adapted from multiplayer gaming, which tracks individual contributions to projects throughout their lifecycle. Dragon Kill Points is built around five key principles: granularity, responsibility, equity, autonomy, and transparency (GREAT). Granularity ensures detailed documentation of tasks, preventing underrepresentation of individual contributions. Responsibility is maintained by setting clear authorship criteria from the outset, allowing contributors to know how their work will be recognised. Equity ensures authorship rules apply to every team member, flattening hierarchies and highlighting ghost or gift authorship. Autonomy allows contributors to challenge or change their authorship position based on their contributions as the project progresses. Finally, transparency fosters trust by continuously sharing contribution records with the entire team. Through Dragon Kill Points, researchers can reduce conflicts, create more inclusive authorship practices, and acknowledge the true value of middle authorship positions. This system offers a flexible, scalable approach to managing authorship across various contexts, providing a solution to the complex challenges of collaboration. DOI https://doi.org/10.32942/X2W05K Subjects Arts and Humanities, Business, Education, Engineering, Law, Life Sciences, Medicine and Health Sciences, Physical Sciences and Mathematics, Social and Behavioral Sciences

Keywords

accountability, coauthorship, collaborative, credit, publishing, contributorship Dates Published: 2025-03-20 10:00 Last Updated: 2026-03-04 16:10 Older Versions License CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Additional Metadata Conflict of interest statement: None Data and Code Availability Statement: https://github.com/martinig/dragon-kill-points Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-27T02:00:06.600101+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0