Judging
It has to be credited in the front-page, above the fold viewable author section of a paper. Not in the (+12 authors) section. It has to be in Nature or Science
It can be credited in ways like "OpenAI's o5 API", or by name, or by anything. The requirement is that some text appear in this section which refers to something which isn't a human being (or an alien) but rather an AI software/quantum/LLM/agent etc thing. An emulated human would count if they were fully run on software.
Thanks to Thomas for the clarifications. The exact requirement is that it be credited as either first author, first co-author, or last author.
Deadline: June 30 midnight, 2026, CA time
Update 2025-02-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Key Clarification:
The AI credit must be in a significant author position. That means it should be listed as a primary or a co-primary author (e.g., among the first few declared co-contributors), rather than just being included in a long list of authors (such as a paper with 100+ authors).
If the AI appears in a less prominent position (for example, as a last author in a listing where that position merely signifies a senior/supervising role), it will not meet the intended criterion.
The focus is on the AI being claimed as the "big dog" in terms of contribution rather than just being a token inclusion.
Update 2025-02-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Qualifying Author Positions:
First Author: The AI must be listed as the primary (first) author or among the first few if declared as equal contributors.
Equal Coauthors: Inclusion as one of the leading equal coauthors qualifies.
PI/Senior/Last Author: Placement in the designated position for the principal investigator or senior contributor (even if this is the last slot) is acceptable.
1,000@Thomas42 Are there cases where the primary author really isn't shown? In the example, is there some special meaning to the final "... AND Fernando Garcia-Moreno". Is it possible that primary authors really aren't being shown above the fold, while others are? Given the competition for prestige I'd just assumed that wouldn't be possible. I'll look int osome more specifics, though.
@Ernie often, if e.g. a PhD student does some work under the supervision of a PI, the PI will be given the final slot. This is also a prestigious slot especially when you are working towards tenure you need to show that you are not just writing papers by yourself but also supervising.
@Thomas42 https://chatgpt.com/share/67b762f4-2ff0-8003-a20e-a88809365532
If you're able to be logged in this basically says that first or first few (if declared as co-contributors) are significant, and that last is the senior/pi/lab organizer.
I am making this distinction because I've heard of papers with 100+ authors. If chatGPT was included among them it wouldn't be very significant. I'm looking for one where it or something like it is being claimed to be as significant a contributor as the other coauthors.
@Thomas42 effectively I'm saying that the candidates for this are if it appears as or in the places which are currently reserved for either first author, any of the equal coauthors, or the pi/senior/last author.