Is there a universal guide for ranking authorship?

The assertion that there is no universal guide for ranking authorship reflects the reality that authorship conventions can differ significantly across institutions, disciplines, and funding bodies. Various organizations and publishing entities have proposed guidelines to establish authorship criteria, but these do not constitute a single comprehensive standard applicable across all contexts.

Different fields may prioritize different contributions differently, and institutions may have their own guidelines that dictate how authorship is assigned based on local policy or ethical standards. As a result, while there are broad recommendations—such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)—these guidelines are often interpreted and implemented in diverse ways, underscoring the lack of a singular universal system for determining authorship ranking. This variation means that reliance on a universally accepted guideline is not feasible.

The other options suggest a sense of uniformity or fixed annual protocols that do not accurately reflect the flexible and context-dependent nature of authorship guidelines in scholarly publishing.