Contributor Roles Taxonomy

Last updated


The Contributor Roles Taxonomy, commonly known as CRediT, is a controlled vocabulary of types of contributions to a research project. [1] CRediT is commonly used by scientific journals to provide an indication of what each contributor to a project did. The CRediT standard includes machine-readable metadata. [2]

Contents

Historically, articles in scientific journals included a list of authors but gave little or no indication of what each author did. Beginning in the 1990s, Drummond Rennie and others argued that journals should indicate who did what. [3] In 2012, a first draft of the CRediT standard was developed in the context of biomedicine by a group of funders, publishers, and researchers. [1]

The CRediT standard provides 14 categories of contribution:

There is also a longer description of each category. [4]

Of the publishers that use CRediT, some have also implemented the possibility for researchers to indicate whether a researcher played a lead, equal or supporting role for each of their contribution types. [5]

In common practice, researchers submitting an article for publication to a journal using CRediT are asked to tick a box next to each of the fourteen contribution types associated with the work that they did.

Possible benefits of indicating who did what using CRediT are:

In 2022, CRediT became an ANSI/NISO standard [8] (ANSI/NISO z39104-2022-credit). [9] The official CRediT standard is in English only, but translations into other languages have been created. [10]

History

Citing inadequacies with current practices in listing authors of papers in medical research journals, Drummond Rennie and co-authors, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1997, called for:

a radical conceptual and systematic change, to reflect the realities of multiple authorship and to buttress accountability. We propose dropping the outmoded notion of author in favor of the more useful and realistic one of contributor. [1] : 152 

In the 2000s, prestigious journals such as Nature began requiring authors to provide information about what their contributions were, [11] but there was no widely-used or machine-readable standard for this.

In 2012, a draft taxonomy was created at a workshop at Harvard. [12] Beginning in 2014, a working group of publishers, funders, and university representatives began meeting to refine the draft of the CRediT taxonomy, coordinated by the Consortia for Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI). [12]

By 2017, PLOS journals and eLife had adopted CRediT, [13] [14] and in 2018 it was endorsed by representatives of the National Academy of Sciences. [15] Over the next several years, some of the largest publishers of scientific journals began using CRediT. [16] [17] [18] [19]

Limitations and criticism

CRediT was primarily designed with scientific journal articles in mind, [20] and even within that, some researchers have reported difficulty mapping the CRediT categories onto their field. [21] In 2023, a systematic scoping review identified 20 unique ethical issues related to contributor role taxonomies like CRediT. [22] One of the highlighted issues pertains to the use of taxonomies like CRediT in specific contexts. For example, the work of performing a literature review may arguably be classified as "Investigation" or "Formal analysis", but neither may seem a good fit. [23] In a study of one psychology research project, independent researchers read detailed descriptions of other researchers' contributions, the results indicated that the independent researchers had low agreement about both the number and type that the contributions should be classified into. [24] Nevertheless, there have also been suggestions on how to extend CRediT roles in three phases including "Identification of candidate roles", "Deciding what roles to include in the standard lists", and "Integrating new roles into the existing list of roles". [25]

CrossRef, which is the largest maintainer of metadata about scientific articles, does not currently support import of CRediT information, but this feature is in development. [26]

As the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has pointed out, documenting contributions with CRediT or another scheme "leaves unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contribution that qualify an individual for authorship", suggesting that authorship guidelines are still necessary. [27]

The Contributor Roles Ontology is an extension of the CRediT taxonomy into more specific roles. [28] An extension for clinical trials (CRediT-RCT) has been proposed. [29]

Other taxonomies have been created that may be more suitable to other fields, such as the Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities (TaDiRAH). [30]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific misconduct</span> Violation of codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in scientific research

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research.

In computing, AAP DTD is a set of three SGML Document Type Definitions for scientific documents, defined by the Association of American Publishers. It was ratified as a U.S. standard under the name ANSI/NISO Z39.59 in 1988, and evolved into the international ISO 12083 standard in 1993. It was supplanted as a U.S. standard by ANSI/ISO 12083 in 1995.

A technical report is a document that describes the process, progress, or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem. It might also include recommendations and conclusions of the research. Unlike other scientific literature, such as scientific journals and the proceedings of some academic conferences, technical reports rarely undergo comprehensive independent peer review before publication. They may be considered as grey literature. Where there is a review process, it is often limited to within the originating organization. Similarly, there are no formal publishing procedures for such reports, except where established locally.

The National Information Standards Organization is a United States non-profit standards organization that develops, maintains and publishes technical standards related to publishing, bibliographic and library applications. It was founded in 1939 as the Z39 Committee, chaired from 1963-1977 by Jerrold Orne, incorporated as a not-for-profit education association in 1983, and assumed its current name in 1984.

An OpenURL is similar to a web address, but instead of referring to a physical website, it refers to an article, book, patent, or other resource within a website.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Literature review</span> Review of the current knowledge of a particular topic

A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article. Either way, a literature review is supposed to provide the researcher/author and the audiences with a general image of the existing knowledge on the topic under question. A good literature review can ensure that a proper research question has been asked and a proper theoretical framework and/or research methodology have been chosen. To be precise, a literature review serves to situate the current study within the body of the relevant literature and to provide context for the reader. In such case, the review usually precedes the methodology and results sections of the work.

Scientific writing is writing about science, with an implication that the writing is by scientists and for an audience that primarily includes peers—those with sufficient expertise to follow in detail. Scientific writing is a specialized form of technical writing, and a prominent genre of it involves reporting about scientific studies such as in articles for a scientific journal. Other scientific writing genres include writing literature-review articles, which summarize the existing state of a given aspect of a scientific field, and writing grant proposals, which are a common means of obtaining funding to support scientific research. Scientific writing is more likely to focus on the pure sciences compared to other aspects of technical communication that are more applied, although there is overlap. There is not one specific style for citations and references in scientific writing. Whether you are submitting a grant proposal, literature review articles, or submitting an article into a paper, the citation system that must be used will depend on the publication you plan to submit to.

The Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI) was a code used to uniquely identify specific volumes, articles or other identifiable parts of a serial. It was "intended primarily for use by those members of the bibliographic community involved in the use or management of serial titles and their contributions". Developed over 1993–1995, NISO adopted SICI as a standard in 1996, then reaffirmed it in 2002. It was withdrawn in 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">COinS</span> Bibliographic metadata embedding method

ContextObjects in Spans (COinS) is a method to embed bibliographic metadata in the HTML code of web pages. This allows bibliographic software to publish machine-readable bibliographic items and client reference management software to retrieve bibliographic metadata. The metadata can also be sent to an OpenURL resolver. This allows, for instance, searching for a copy of a book at a specific library.

Academic authorship of journal articles, books, and other original works is a means by which academics communicate the results of their scholarly work, establish priority for their discoveries, and build their reputation among their peers. Through authorship, researchers, assistants, interns, students, and other involved parties receive credit for their contributions and can be held responsible and accountable for the quality and integrity of the work.

Medical ghostwriters are employed by pharmaceutical companies and medical-device manufacturers to produce apparently independent manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other communications. Physicians and other scientists are paid to attach their names to the manuscripts as though they had authored them. The named authors may have had little or no involvement in the research or writing process.

The Grey Literature International Steering Committee (GLISC) was established in 2006 after the 7th International Conference on Grey Literature (GL7) held in Nancy (France) on 5–6 December 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxonomy</span> Development of classes and classifications

Taxonomy is a practice and science concerned with classification or categorization. Typically, there are two parts to it: the development of an underlying scheme of classes and the allocation of things to the classes (classification).

In the context of information retrieval, a thesaurus is a form of controlled vocabulary that seeks to dictate semantic manifestations of metadata in the indexing of content objects. A thesaurus serves to minimise semantic ambiguity by ensuring uniformity and consistency in the storage and retrieval of the manifestations of content objects. ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 defines a content object as "any item that is to be described for inclusion in an information retrieval system, website, or other source of information". The thesaurus aids the assignment of preferred terms to convey semantic metadata associated with the content object.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Journal Article Tag Suite</span>

The Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) is an XML format used to describe scientific literature published online. It is a technical standard developed by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and approved by the American National Standards Institute with the code Z39.96-2012.

Amy Brand is an American academic. Brand is the current Director and Publisher of the MIT Press, a position she assumed in July 2015. Previously, Brand served as the assistant provost of faculty appointments and information at Harvard University, and as a vice president at Digital Science.

Metascience is the use of scientific methodology to study science itself. Metascience seeks to increase the quality of scientific research while reducing inefficiency. It is also known as "research on research" and "the science of science", as it uses research methods to study how research is done and find where improvements can be made. Metascience concerns itself with all fields of research and has been described as "a bird's eye view of science". In the words of John Ioannidis, "Science is the best thing that has happened to human beings ... but we can do it better."

ISO 12083 is an international SGML standard for document interchange between authors and publishers. It features separate Document Type Definitions for books, serials, articles, and math. Derived from AAP DTD, it was first published in 1993, revised in 1994, and last confirmed in 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conflicts of interest in academic publishing</span>

Conflicts of interest (COIs) often arise in academic publishing. Such conflicts may cause wrongdoing and make it more likely. Ethical standards in academic publishing exist to avoid and deal with conflicts of interest, and the field continues to develop new standards. Standards vary between journals and are unevenly applied. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "[a]uthors have a responsibility to evaluate the integrity, history, practices and reputation of the journals to which they submit manuscripts".

Crowdsourced science refers to collaborative contributions of a large group of people to the different steps of the research process in science. In psychology, the nature and scope of the collaborations can vary in their application and in the benefits it offers.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Brand, Amy; Allen, Liz; Altman, Micah; Hlava, Marjorie; Scott, Jo (1 April 2015). "Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit". Learned Publishing. 28 (2): 151–155. doi: 10.1087/20150211 . S2CID   45167271.
  2. ↑ "CRediT taxonomy – JATS4R". 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
  3. 1 2 Rennie, Drummond (1997-08-20). "When Authorship Fails: A Proposal to Make Contributors Accountable". JAMA. 278 (7): 579–585. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041. ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   9268280.
  4. ↑ https://credit.niso.org/
  5. ↑ "How to implement CRediT". CRediT. 2020-04-14. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  6. ↑ Larivière, Vincent; Desrochers, Nadine; Macaluso, Benoît; Mongeon, Philippe; Paul-Hus, Adèle; Sugimoto, Cassidy R (June 2016). "Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production". Social Studies of Science. 46 (3): 417–435. doi:10.1177/0306312716650046. hdl: 1866/23289 . ISSN   0306-3127. PMID   28948891.
  7. ↑ Ngiam, William X. Q. (2021-12-29). "Fully Credited: Making Publishing More Equitable". APS Observer. 35.
  8. ↑ "Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) Formalized as ANSI/NISO Standard | NISO website". www.niso.org. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  9. ↑ "ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy | NISO website". www.niso.org. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  10. ↑ "Translations of CRediT". contributorshipcollaboration.github.io. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  11. ↑ "Authorship policies". Nature. 458 (7242): 1078. April 2009. Bibcode:2009Natur.458.1078.. doi:10.1038/4581078a. ISSN   1476-4687. PMID   19407745.
  12. 1 2 Brand, Amy; Allen, Liz; Altman, Micah; Hlava, Marjorie; Scott, Jo (April 2015). "Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit". Learned Publishing. 28 (2): 151–155. doi:10.1087/20150211. ISSN   0953-1513.
  13. ↑ Atkins, Helen (2016). "Author Credit: PLOS and CRediT Update". PLOS blog. Archived from the original on 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  14. ↑ "Enabling the Contributor Roles Taxonomy for author contributions". eLife. 2017-01-04. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  15. ↑ McNutt, Marcia K.; Bradford, Monica; Drazen, Jeffrey M.; Hanson, Brooks; Howard, Bob; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall; Kiermer, Véronique; Marcus, Emilie; Pope, Barbara Kline; Schekman, Randy; Swaminathan, Sowmya; Stang, Peter J.; Verma, Inder M. (2018-03-13). "Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (11): 2557–2560. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.2557M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   5856527 . PMID   29487213.
  16. ↑ "CRediT: How do we recognize contributions to Research? An interview with V.P. of Publications at AGU". www.wiley.com. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  17. ↑ "CRediT". Sage Publications. 2020-01-14. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  18. ↑ "CRediT where credit's due". www.elsevier.com. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  19. ↑ "Frontiers adopts CRediT to enhance clarity in research authorship". www.frontiersin.org. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  20. ↑ Meadows, Alice (2022-05-24). "Next Steps for CRediT - An Interview with the Co-Chairs". The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
  21. ↑ Gadd, Elizabeth (2020-01-20). "CRediT Check – Should we welcome tools to differentiate the contributions made to academic papers?". LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog. Archived from the original on 2024-04-16. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  22. ↑ Hosseini, Mohammad; Gordijn, Bert; Wafford, Q. Eileen; Holmes, Kristi L. (2024-08-17). "A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies". Accountability in Research. 31 (6): 678–705. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2161049 . ISSN   0898-9621.
  23. ↑ "Into which category of the CRediT contributor role taxonomy does an (extensive) literature review go?". Academia Stack Exchange. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
  24. ↑ Brown, J. Oliver; Staton, Christian; Smith, Timothy; Paris, Bastien (2020). "Credit where credit is due? An examination of the reliability of crediting behavior in science". Open Science Framework.
  25. ↑ Hosseini, Mohammad; Colomb, Julien; Holcombe, Alex O.; Kern, Barbara; Vasilevsky, Nicole A.; Holmes, Kristi L. (2023). "Evolution and adoption of contributor role ontologies and taxonomies". Learned Publishing. 36 (2): 275–284. doi: 10.1002/leap.1496 . ISSN   0953-1513.
  26. ↑ "Metadata schema development plans - Crossref". Crossref community forum. 2024-07-22. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  27. ↑ "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals" (PDF). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2024. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
  28. ↑ Vasilevsky, Nicole A.; Hosseini, Mohammad; Teplitzky, Samantha; Ilik, Violeta; Mohammadi, Ehsan; Schneider, Juliane; Kern, Barbara; Colomb, Julien; Edmunds, Scott C.; Gutzman, Karen; Himmelstein, Daniel S.; White, Marijane; Smith, Britton; O’Keefe, Lisa; Haendel, Melissa (2021-01-02). "Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles". Accountability in Research. 28 (1): 23–43. doi:10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591. ISSN   0898-9621. PMC   7736357 . PMID   32602379.
  29. ↑ Zhang, Zhongheng; Wang, Stephen D.; Li, Grace S.; Kong, Guilan; Gu, Hongqiu; Alfonso, Fernando (December 2019). "The contributor roles for randomized controlled trials and the proposal for a novel CRediT-RCT". Annals of Translational Medicine. 7 (24): 812–812. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.12.96 . PMC   6989869 . PMID   32042828.
  30. ↑ "ACDH-CH/DARIAH Vocabularies: TaDiRAH: Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities". vocabs.dariah.eu. Retrieved 2024-08-09.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.