Sharing credit among authors of research papers: The CRediT taxonomy
As research becomes increasingly collaborative—and also competitive at the same time—the sequence in which the names of authors of a research paper are listed no longer serves as adequate indication of credit. Earlier, the sequence was clearly recognized as following a descending order, with the author whose name appears first in the list claiming maximum credit; the next author, a bit less credit than the first author, and so on. In some disciplines, a “surprise twist” was customary, and the last-named author was also considered to have made a significant contribution—although the nature of that contribution was never explicitly stated. However, even at best, the sequence remained a poor indicator, so much so that a paper with more than twenty authors [1] carried a note, placed immediately after the discussion section, that began thus: “The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first three authors should be regarded as joint first authors.”
It was to deal with such problems that a mechanism, namely CRediT, short for Contributor Roles Taxonomy was developed. It has evolved over time, with more and more journals requiring authors to complete the CRediT statement while uploading their manuscripts on their submission systems (Scholar One, Editorial Manager, etc.). In its essence, the taxonomy identifies and defines fourteen distinct functions [2], some or all of which need to be carried out as part of a research project. These range from such core functions as conceptualizing the study, choosing the method of investigation, and writing the first draft to peripheral ones such as data visualization, application of specific software, and editing the first draft.
Author or contributor?
Before we come to apportioning credit among authors, we need to know who gets to be among the list of authors—and therefore a more prominent place in the research paper—and who appears in the acknowledgements section. Research is a team effort and all members of a team contribute their individual expertise to making research a success, but that does not mean that all contribute equally or that every member gets to be among the authors. Although this is a contentious issue, those who contribute to only part of the process—laboratory technicians, field staff, and copy editors, for example—and are only marginally concerned about the objectives of the research are seldom included among the authors. The same principle applies to those who facilitate research in their capacity as administrators, coordinators, and even fund raisers. It is generally understood that these individuals have no claim as far as authorship is concerned, whereas whether they should feature in the acknowledgments section is left to the discretion of the authors of the paper.
Who gets to be listed as an author?
What sets authors apart from other contributors is the degree of involvement in the core functions mentioned above. In simpler terms, authors are those who initiate a given piece of research; contributors come on board later. Another criterion for authorship is the ability to defend the research being reported and answer queries related to it independently. As the criteria defined by ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) put it, authors agree “to be accountable for all aspects of the work” [3, p. 2 (Section II A 2)]. The committee lists four criteria and to be an author, one needs to meet all four of them. However, increasing specialization, and collaboration that can even be virtual, make it increasingly difficult to comply with that condition—which is why we need a listing of different roles. And CRediT meets that need.
Listing and defining the roles that comprise research
The fourteen roles CRediT lists are as follows, in alphabetical order:
- Conceptualization
- Data curation
- Formal analysis
- Funding acquisition
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project administration
- Resources
- Software
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing – original draft
- Writing – review and editing
The document that lists these roles also defines them. Formally, it is the responsibility of the corresponding author to assign such roles; however, all those who are mentioned in the CRediT statement should review it and confirm their assigned role or roles (a single author can have multiple roles, and multiple individuals can be assigned a given role, with further information being provided by using the adjectives “lead,” “equal,” or “supporting”).
Incidentally, the CRediT framework specifically mentions that the CRediT statement should feature all contributors who have been named against their specific roles, including those who feature only in the acknowledgements section and are not listed as authors.
Conclusion
Research being a team effort, it is best if all members of a given team are aware of CRediT and agree early on about their respective assignments. This is in the spirit of transparency and equity and helps in other ways too. For instance, the United Kingdom’s Research Excellence Framework 2028 [4, p. 2] “will be a more inclusive assessment exercise, capturing the valuable contributions of a wider range of researchers and research-enabling staff”—and CRediT will no doubt help in recognizing the contributions of such “research-enabling staff.”
References
[1] Castro-Mondragon J A. 2021. JASPAR 2022: the 9th release of the open-access
database of transcription factor binding profiles. Nucleic Acids Research 50: D165–D173. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1113
[2] NISO. Contributor roles defined. Baltimore, Maryland: National Information Standards Organization. https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined/
[3] ICMJE. 2023. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and
publication of scholarly work in medical journals updated May 2023. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two
[4] Jisc. 2023. Research Excellence Framework 2028: initial decisions and issues for further consultation. https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/9148/1/research-excellence-framework-2028-initial-decisions-report.pdf [Jisc owes its origins to the Joint Information Systems Committee in the UK.]
Comments
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
Subscribe to Conducting Research
