CRediT
CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) [removed copyright violation][1] It follows the NISO-Standard.[2] The CRediT steering committee and NISO worked collaboratively on the implementation of the taxonomy.[3]
Background
The allocation of resources in Science is highly dependent on the reputation of individual researchers. Additionally, individual career development also depends on it. Reputation is typically gained by receiving recognition from peers for meaningful contributions. Since written text, mostly in the form of scientific articles, is still the dominant method to communicate research results and insights, authorship plays an important role in the allocation of prestige. It allows scientists to acknowledge their peers’ contribution and determines who is eligible to receive such acknowledgement. The Social norm is that a valuable contribution should receive adequate acknowledgement and the individual(s) responsible for it (author(s)) should thus get the appropriate recognition.[4]
Adhering to that norm and making the allocation of credit as fair as possible is a difficult endeavour[5]. In recent history, even more so with the increasing amount of authors that work on one paper[6]. Scientific communities came up with different ways of representing how much effort was spent by an author, like ordering the list of authors by their level of contribution. However, approaches like these come with their own problems, can be abused, and can be difficult to implement in a fair manner. Moreover, they vary considerably across scientific disciplines and even sub-disciplines. One of the major problems results from making credit dependent on authorship (understood as writing or revising part of an article) in the first place. Scientists may participate in the research process but not actively write the paper. Although contributing to the paper, some journals do not deem these researchers eligible for authorship and thus prevent them from receiving credit for their contribution[7].
In order to make credit attribution more transparent, consequently fairer, and better comparable between scientific disciplines, the CRediT Taxonomy was proposed[8]. It is hoped that by having more knowledge about what researchers' exact contributions are, that for example funding agencies can make better informed decisions about whose grant proposals to accept [9]. Thereby allocating their resources in a more transparent fashion to the most suitable candidate.
Roles
The taxonomy describes 14 different roles[10]
- Conceptualization
- Data curation
- Formal Analysis
- Funding acquisition
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project administration
- Resources
- Software
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – original draft
- Writing – review & editing
Adoption
Various publishers recommend using the CRediT taxonomy for indicating authors’ specific contributions:
- Elsevier encourages authors to be transparent about their contributions and gives the CRediT taxonomy as an example for how to achieve that[11][12]
- If not specified otherwise by a journal, Springer recommends to give a contribution statement when submitting a paper. The CRediT taxonomy is given as an example on how to classify contributions.[13]
- The American Association for Cancer Research uses the CRediT taxonomy for all its journals[14]
Various journals recommend, encourage or instruct their authors to use the CRediT taxonomy.[15] Some examples are:
- Personality Neuroscience (Cambridge University Press)[16]
- GigaScience (Oxford University Press)[17]
- Journal of Cell Science[18]
Other:
References
- ↑ "CRediT - Contributor Roles Taxonomy". CASRAI.
- ↑ "Implementing CRediT – CRediT".
- ↑ "Key Milestones Achieved in CRediT-NISO Collaboration | NISO website". www.niso.org.
- ↑ Merton, Robert King (1973). The sociology of science : theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226520926. Search this book on
- ↑ RIGNEY, DANIEL (2010). "The Matthew Effect: How Advantage Begets Further Advantage". Columbia University Press. JSTOR 10.7312/rign14948.
- ↑ Aboukhalil, Robert (2014). "The rising trend in authorship". The Winnower. doi:10.15200/winn.141832.26907.
- ↑ Holcombe, Alex O. (2 July 2019). "Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What". Publications. 7 (3): 48. doi:10.3390/publications7030048.
- ↑ Brand, Amy; Allen, Liz; Altman, Micah; Hlava, Marjorie; Scott, Jo (2015). "Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit". Learned Publishing. 28 (2): 151–155. doi:10.1087/20150211. Unknown parameter
|s2cid=ignored (help) - ↑ Nassi-Calò, Lilian (14 March 2018). "Authorship criteria preserve scholarly communication integrity | SciELO in Perspective". Retrieved 2 May 2021.
- ↑ "CRediT". SAGE Publications Inc. 14 January 2020. Retrieved 2 May 2021.
- ↑ "Policies & guidelines". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ Neuhausen, Hubertus (5 August 2020). "Open Access? – Ist durch! Aber was ist mit den Daten?: APE 2020 – Academic Publishing in Europe No. 15: Driving Change – together!". ABI Technik. 40 (3): 286. doi:10.1515/abitech-2020-2022.
- ↑ "Editorial policies - Authorship Principles | Springer". www.springer.com. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ "Editorial Policies | American Association for Cancer Research". aacrjournals.org. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ http://www.nasonline.org, National Academy of Sciences -. "Transparency in Author Contributions in Science (TACS)". www.nasonline.org. Retrieved 2 May 2021.
- ↑ "Instructions for authors". Cambridge Core. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ "Editorial Policies and Reporting Standards". Oxford Academic. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ "Author contributions: CRediT taxonomy | Journal of Cell Science | The Company of Biologists | Journal of Cell Science | The Company of Biologists". journals.biologists.com. Retrieved 1 May 2021.
- ↑ "Giving CRediT where CRediT is Due". ORCID. 22 April 2021.
External links
- https://casrai.org/credit/
- http://credit.niso.org/
- List of publishers that recommend, encourage or require the use of the CRediT taxonomy (not an independend source)
- Liz Allen et al., Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution (IWCSA Report), Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust, 2012
This article "CRediT" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:CRediT. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
