Increasing levels of collaboration constitute one of the characteristics of science. However, the knowledge production system is based on a fundamental discordance: on the one hand, it is cooperative in nature, with links articulated through coauthorships, and on the other, the systems for assigning merit and distributing rewards function on an individual scale. This contradiction can give rise to dysfunction and mala praxis. This study analyzes researchers’ perceptions about the problems associated with authorship in scientific publications. We propose a coauthorship dissatisfaction index that measures the degree of dissatisfaction with the author order on the byline, ghost authors, and hyperauthorship. There are differences in this regard according to the branch of knowledge, status in the academic hierarchy, and sex. Using a sample of 2344 researchers, we observed an overall dissatisfaction rate of 12.4%. The highest rates were in the areas of Health Sciences and Social Sciences, in early-stage career academics, and in women. The cognizant authorities should take steps to regulate authorship, tailoring rules to each area of knowledge, with an eye toward reducing discrimination, gender bias, and abuse of authority.