Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit

Brand, Amy; Allen, Liz; Altman, Micah; Hlava, Marjorie M.K.; Scott, Jo

doi:10.1087/20150211

Cited by 451 publications

(320 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

304

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their solution was, instead, to just describe the contribution of each collaborator involved in the paper. Such an approach still finds support, and the so‐called CRediT taxonomy has been worked out to assist in ascribing contributorship to researchers by specifying kinds of contribution in quite some detail (Brand et al, ), an initiative that has gained some ground (see http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT). Several journals have introduced the practice of asking the collaborators of submitted papers to specify their contributions to the paper, which increases the transparency of the collaboration.…”

Section: Is There a Fair Solution?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship order

Helgesson

Eriksson

2018

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the fact that authorship order plays such a significant role as a basis for scientific merit, this paper looks into the practices of authorship order from a research ethical perspective. We conclude that there is a wide variety of practices and no common understanding of what the different authorship positions signify. Authorship guidelines do not provide much help. We recognize that, regardless of what system for valuing authorship positions is used, it will be misleading and unfair in most applications because relative contributions vary in ways that are not captured by fixed value assignments to authorship positions. In theory, assigning percentage figures reflecting the relative contributions of the authors would solve that problem, but we argue that such a scheme is not likely to work in practice. It can also be questioned whether relative, rather than absolute, contributions should be the basis for scientific merit. Contributorship is discussed as an alternative, but is recognized to be insufficient both in communicating absolute and relative contributions, as standardly used. However, there may be a way forward with contributorship, but then, the level of detail needs to increase considerably and its application be standardized.

show abstract

Section: Is There a Fair Solution?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship order

Helgesson

Eriksson

2018

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps, either or both of these paradigms could be extended to include open data/review. Furthermore, entities such as Project CRediT are raising awareness about the ‘contributorship’ agenda, which offers new standardized practices for acknowledging – and badging – a variety of levels and types of research output and production (see, for instance, Brand, Allen, Atman, Hlava, & Scott, ).…”

Section: Next Stepsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update on peer review and research data

Murphy¹

2016

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the April issue of Learned Publishing Amy Brand et al 1 described an evolution from 'authorship' to recognizing attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Whether we consider the number of authors (especially in science), the variety of their contributions or issues with author disputes or misconduct, there are advantages to defining participation more accurately.…”

Section: Who Receives Credit and For What? What Is Important And To Wmentioning

confidence: 99%