GLOBAL data from over 42,000 neuroscience and psychology papers, 142,000 radiology articles, and more than 17 million biomedical publications reveals a consistent trend: the number of authors per paper is steadily increasing. At least in the case of Pakistan, the trend can be rationalised. In our context, academic advancement is closely tied to publication count. If one publication can contribute to the promotion of, say, 10 people, why not? Promotion from assistant professor (BPS-19) to associate professor (BPS-20) generally requires 10 publications, while elevation to professor (BPS-21) typically needs 15. A notable aspect of the system is that each co-author, regardless of their contribution or position in the joint byline, is allowed to claim full credit for a publication. Whether a paper has three, 10, or even 20 authors, all the listed contributors can count it towards their promotion criteria.

This raises a fundamental question: should all authors receive equal recognition regardless of their actual input? As multi-authored papers become the norm, concerns about fairness, accountability, and ethical authorship practices intensify.

Equal credit for unequal contribution risks promoting honorary or guest authorship, undermining the integrity of the promotion process, especially when senior faculty members push for inclusion without genuine involvement.

Although collaboration is a positive and necessary aspect of modern science, excessive authorship can blur the distinction between genuine contribution and token inclusion. While multi-authorship often reflects interdisciplinary effort and shared expertise, it also complicates efforts to measure individual merit accurately. The common `one paper, one credit` approach does not capture the nuances of collaborative work, and may prioritise quantity over meaningful scholarship.

Some Pakistaniuniversitieshavebegun recognising authorship order, giving more weight to the first author than to the subsequent ones. However, these efforts remain fragmented.

A national-level policy is needed to bring uniformity and fairness to promotion assessments, ensuring recognition aligns more closely with actual contributions.

Waseem Hassan Peshawar