Right now authorship claims are verified by the editorial administration. This is potentially slow, and it poses an unnecessary burden. Instead authorship claims could be verified by the submitting authors. This poses no additional risk, and would save the editorial administration some work.
Designs
Child items
0
No child items are currently assigned. Use child items to break down this issue into smaller parts.
Linked items
0
Link issues together to show that they're related or that one is blocking others.
Learn more.
I see that vetting of authorships requires the can_vet_authorship_claims permission, only available for administrators and vetting editors. Therefore, I believe this is still an open issue.
@gkatsikas I believe authorship claims are being deprecated due to the "new" pre-assignment step? We probably have some old submissions for which authors will keep claiming authorship, but that should die off in time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is not deprecated. The system still automatically marks users as potential authors (based on last name partial matching) and hides these submissions from the pool. Recently (in f1fadbe4), a warning of that fact and a link to confirm or deny the automatic claims was added to the pool.
We should decide if:
We remove the system completely, instead relying only on the preassignment step to correctly establish submission-author relations.
We keep the system, and modernize its views, implement notifications #317, and allow authors to verify claims #61.
I favour keeping the system and implementing #317. As the system is meant to verify the authenticity of the claim and prevent users from taking ownership of someone else's paper, users should not be able to verify their own claims. We can consider allowing the submitting author to verify claims, but if this involves a large revamp of permissions I don't think it is worth it.