ABSTRACT: This research addresses the legal and ethical conflicts related to authorship and editorial rights in scientific production, focusing on the autonomy of the principal investigator and the protection of patients' rights in clinical and academic contexts. It is contextualized in the current scenario of collaborative science, where the complexity of authorship relationships demands clear and integrated regulations to ensure justice and integrity. The problem centers on the lack of uniform regulations that govern publication and authority decisions, generating disputes and legal uncertainty. The general objective was to critically analyze the legislation, institutional norms and jurisprudence to propose guidelines that minimize copyright conflicts. To this end, the Giftedean neoperspectivist paradigm was adopted, with theories of copyright, bioethics and human rights, applying the hypothetical-deductive method. The bibliographic and documentary narrative review used databases such as Scielo, Scopus and Web of Science, with descriptors related to “scientific authorization”, “patient rights”, and “research ethics”, resulting in the analysis of 47 selected works. The main findings highlight regulatory gaps and the essential role of case law and institutional policies in mitigating conflicts. It was concluded that interdisciplinary integration is fundamental for advances in the protection of copyright and patients' rights. Gaps refer to the need for legislative updates and greater interpretative uniformity. Limitations include the restricted scope to certain academic realities. The contributions cover theoretically, methodologically and empirically the understanding of copyright and ethical dynamics, adding value to scientific management and academic justice.
Breviário et al. (Sat,) studied this question.