They are "authors" in the sense that they are putting their names on the paper and, effectively, the weight of their reputations. That is what counts for purposes of the paper's credibility. I think everyone understands, experts and laypersons alike, that there aren't ~ 60 scientists going back and forth on one master redline draft.
Having no direct experience with scientific peer reviewed journals, I won't contest your description of a desultory glance at the manuscript, but I don't particularly believe it, either.
There was no mention of all variety of things: The Odds Ratio, t-tests, gene activation, more specifics on brain volume MRI's, the specifics of the 42/40 AB ratio, etc. When you write a paper you need to give it a focus, and the focus here was the bottom line outcome of the trial. It's what the readers need to know. The regulatory agencies will see everything, because that's what they need to know.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
