With the seventh edition of the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), the APA style now prescribes bias-free language and encourages accessibility even to non-academic audiences. However, even with the newest guidelines, the way we credit authors in psychology remains anachronistic, intransparent, and prone to conflict. It still relies on a sequence-determines-credit approach in the byline, which concurrently is contradicted by the option to consider the last author as the position of the principal investigator depending on the field or journal. Scholars from various disciplines have argued that relying on such norms introduces a considerable amount of error when stakeholders rely on articles for career-relevant decisions. Given the existing recommendations towards a credit-based system, ignoring those issues will further promote bias that could be avoided with rather minor changes to the way we perceive authorship. In this article, we introduce a set of easy-to-implement changes to the manuscript layout that value contribution rather than position. Aimed at fostering transparency, accountability, and equality between authors, establishing those changes would likely benefit all stakeholders in contemporary psychological science.

中文翻译：

---

第一作者全拿走了？更明显、更透明、更公正地标注作者姓名的解决方案

随着美国心理学会 (APA) 出版手册第七版的推出，APA 风格现在规定了无偏见的语言，并鼓励非学术受众也可以使用。然而，即使有了最新的指导方针，我们对心理学作者的认可方式仍然不合时宜、不透明，而且容易发生冲突。它仍然依赖于署名中的顺序决定信用方法，同时这与根据领域或期刊将最后一位作者视为主要研究者的位置的选项相矛盾。来自不同学科的学者认为，当利益相关者依赖文章做出与职业相关的决策时，依赖这些规范会带来相当大的错误。鉴于现有的基于信用的系统的建议，忽视这些问题将进一步助长偏见，而这种偏见可以通过对我们看待作者身份的方式进行微小的改变来避免。在本文中，我们介绍了一组易于实施的手稿布局更改，这些更改重视贡献而不是位置。旨在促进作者之间的透明度、问责制和平等，做出这些改变可能会让当代心理科学的所有利益相关者受益。