Ethical Analysis and Governance Pathways of Authorship Disputes in Interdisciplinary Research in Digital-Intelligent Era

The deep penetration of digital and intelligent technologies has established interdisciplinary research as the core form of knowledge production, injecting momentum into the deep integration in academic publishing while also highlighting disputes regarding research authorship attribution. These authorship disputes erode the foundation of academic integrity and present a significant barrier to the deep development of interdisciplinary research. This paper analyzes 43 cases of interdisciplinary authorship disputes reported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China from 2020 to 2024. The research employs a three-dimensional analytical framework encompassing "institution, technology, and ethics," combined with the CRediT contributor role classification method and blockchain technology, to conduct a comprehensive investigation. The findings reveal that the core contradictions of interdisciplinary authorship disputes are concentrated in three aspects: First, the research paradigm differences between natural sciences (which prioritize empirical data and technological development) and social sciences (which emphasize theoretical construction and ethical analysis) lead to divergent perceptions of contributions, often neglecting implicit contributions such as "interdisciplinary coordination." Second, the lack of unified quantification standards and weight conversion mechanisms for multiple contributions, including technological development and theoretical innovation, leads to difficulties in comparing contributions. Third, interest-driven misuse of authorship rights frequently occurs, including improper behaviors such as "honorary authorship", "guest authorship", ghostwriting and submission, and identity impersonation. The underlying causes manifest at multiple levels: institutionally, there is a lack of exclusive contribution recognition standards and regulatory mechanisms for interdisciplinary research; technically, traditional recording systems are fragmented, and blockchain certification applications lag behind; and ethically, academic ethics are out of order, and the imbalance between scientific research interests and benefits is evident. Consequently, this paper proposes a collaborative governance approach: institutionally, improving the CRediT classification system (adding an interdisciplinary coordination category, refining methodological classification, and establishing a contribution weight conversion mechanism) to standardize contribution recognition, while establishing a full-cycle attribution ethics review system for interdisciplinary projects; technically, building a blockchain-based transparent contribution traceability platform with artificial intelligence-assisted attribution review tools; and ethically, establishing a multi-stakeholder collaborative mechanism involving self-supervision by the academic community, full-process control by publishing institutions, and coordinated punishment by policies and industries. This paper illuminates the distinctive characteristics of interdisciplinary authorship disputes within the Chinese academic ecosystem, providing theoretical support and practical pathways for scientific research management departments to establish specific norms and for academic communities to efficiently resolve authorship disputes. Furthermore, it offers valuable insights for improving the ethical system of academic publishing in the digital and intelligent era while promoting the healthy development of interdisciplinary research.