ABSTRACT: This research addresses the complex issue of conflicts of will in collective authority in academic environments, focusing on the need for legal and ethical harmonization between co-authors. It is contextualized in the growing number of disputes related to authority in collaborative research, highlighting the lack of specific regulations and effective institutional practices for resolving these conflicts. The problem centers on the difficulty of ensuring fair and legitimate recognition of authority in the face of disagreements between researchers. The general objective was to analyze, based on the neoperspectivist Giftedean paradigm, the legal and social implications of conflicts of will in co-authorship, adopting theories such as Copyright Law, Mediation Theory and Research Ethics. The hypothetical-deductive method and a scientific bibliographic and documentary narrative review were used, with databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and SciELO, applying descriptors related to collective authority, conflict, mediation and ethics, resulting in a detailed analysis of 45 high-impact papers. The main findings reveal that the express and consensual manifestation of the will of the co-authors is essential for the legitimization of authority, and that alternative mechanisms for conflict resolution promote more ethical collaborative environments. The conclusions point to important advances, but highlight gaps in regulations and empirical research on the subject. Among the limitations, the restricted scope of the review and the limited number of practical cases stand out. The research contributes theoretically by integrating different legal and social perspectives, methodologically by the rigor of the review and empirically by the analysis of institutional cases, adding value to public policies, graduate studies and academic practices.
Breviário et al. (Sat,) studied this question.