Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.

理想情况下，指南反映了从临床实践到研究人员行为等关注问题的公认立场。仔细阅读后，作者身份指南将作者身份归因于完全或几乎完全嵌入特定研究的个人，包括设计或执行以及对写作过程的重要参与。这些要求规定了专门启用这种嵌入的科学工作组织。根据对大学和食品行业营养科学家的采访，我们证明研究人员的组织可能会大大偏离这些规定。因此，劳动组织，无论其内容如何，​​都会对谁有资格成为作家产生影响。食品行业积极利用较少的食品行业员工符合资格的事实来管理其知识主张的可信度和所有权，即同名科学：在作者指南的帮助下，科学的归属除了一个组织框架之外，对所有其他方面都视而不见。