In 2016, EFSA published its first review of its authorship principles, acknowledging the need to credit individual contributors more explicitly. At that time, EFSA's authorship model was largely collective, attributed to Scientific Panels and the Scientific Committee, with individual experts and staff acknowledged but not formally listed as authors. This approach did not fully reflect the collaborative and multidisciplinary nature of its scientific work. The changes that the first review ushered in have contributed significantly to EFSA's open science approach and the visibility of its contributors. Fast forward to 2026, and EFSA has implemented a comprehensive review of its authorship guidelines. The aim is to ensure continued alignment with the principles of its founding legislation while meeting the needs for transparency, clarity and visibility in a changing operating environment. This updated framework reflects the evolving demands of sustainability, stakeholder expectations and the professional needs of EFSA's contributors. It responds in particular to the evolving organisational environment following the enactment of the Transparency Regulation of 2019, a watershed moment that heralded a more accessible and sustainable risk assessment approach. Among the plethora of changes introduced since then, there has been an increasing diversity in contributors to EFSA's work including among others the increasing involvement of national food safety experts. The revised guidelines introduce a more structured and inclusive model for scientific authorship attribution. Individuals are now classified as either authors or contributors, based on clearly defined criteria, that comply with EFSA's Founding Regulation and are more aligned with the standard authorship guidelines provided for example by the ICMJE and similar initiatives. To be credited as an author, one must demonstrate substantive contributions across four domains: conceptual design, drafting or critical review, final approval and accountability for the integrity of the work. Contributors, while not meeting all four criteria, must show significant involvement in both the design and drafting/review stages. The type of contributions which the various actors can make is also regulated and limited by EFSA's Founding Regulation. Finally, provision is made for acknowledgement of all other individuals who, while not meeting the above criteria for authors or contributors, nevertheless contribute significantly to the preparation of the scientific work: as a result the Acknowledgements section will become more comprehensive. Although the published author lists in the EFSA Journal are not expected to change significantly, the roles played by individual contributors in a risk assessment will be described more explicitly and comprehensively. The previous guidelines governing the predefined sequence of published author listings remain unchanged as do the provisions for listing individuals who hold minority views, declare competing interests or serve multiple roles in the risk assessment process. As previously, individuals who declare a competing interest are excluded from authorship and their contribution is indicated transparently in the publication. The guidelines extend to digital outputs, including computer code and scripts published in EFSA's Knowledge Junction. Here, authorship is based on substantive involvement in development, testing and validation, recognising the growing importance of computational tools in risk assessment. In conclusion, this review reaffirms EFSA's commitment to open science and ensures that every contributor's role is visible, valued and accountable. The increased rigour that this more structured approach brings will ensure that the organisation can continue to work in full transparency and, in so doing, also strengthen EFSA's scientific activities.
Healy et al. (Thu,) studied this question.