Recent searches
Search options
In a piece I am preparing, I want to make the claim that "using the CRediT taxonomy also promotes the recognition of scholarly effort, and that it enhances the diversity of scholarly career paths and experiences."
Does anybody know of actual evidence for this? Or other references I could adduce?
Here is what I have so far:
- Allen, L. et al. (2019): "How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship", *Learned Publishing* 32/1. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1210.
- Larivière, V., et al. (2021): "Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)", *Quantitative Science Studies* 2/1. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00097.
- McNutt, M.K., et al. (2018): "Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication", *PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 115/11. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115.
- Meadows, A. (2020): "Beyond Publication — Increasing Opportunities For Recognizing All Research Contributions", Blog Post on The Scholarly Kitchen, Official Blog of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, Aug 12, 2020. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/12/beyond-publication-increasing-opportunities-for-recognizing-all-research-contributions/.
and links about CRediT itself:
- Allen, L. et al. (2014): "Publishing: Credit where credit is due", *Nature* 508. https://doi.org/10.1038/508312a.
- ANSI/NISO (2022): CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022). https://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022.
- Demain, P. (2021): "Giving CRediT where CRediT is Due", Blog Post on *ORCID*, April 22, 2021. <https://info.orcid.org/credit-for-research-contribution/>.
And obviously https://credit.niso.org/ .
The paper by Larivière et al (mentioned elsewhere in the thread) is an excellent starting point, I am now retrieving papers that cite it.
But I must acknowledge that my initial thesis has been too vague to be substantiable, at least at this point in time (as @Transportist has pointed out): To prove "promotion of recognition" and or "enhancement of diversity of career paths and experiences", you would probably need post-CRediT data about actual recognition practices or career paths or how those diverse experiences/perspectives find expression in research results. I guess I'll go rather for "may contribute to".
But, as Lariviere et al show, there *is* evidence for CRediT rendering at least visible diverse types of contributions and present unjust asymmetries in recognition that align with them. They also argue convincingly that it is not only about inclusion in authors lists, but also about how the various contributions and the qualifications/mindsets necessary to provide them, are represented in education and research evaluation/assessment that go beyond publication lists.
And now I see how the CRediT-#ORCID-combination may (!) turn out to be a crucial element of the move to more adequate and humane research assessment and metrics like the ones striven for by initiatives such as @humetricshss and @DORAssessment , and why they are so much in favor of CRediT and at the same time discuss it most often together with ORCID ...
@anwagnerdreas I would view CRediT as a hypothesis that it would do those things. I would think it’s too young and sparse to show evidence on career paths.
@anwagnerdreas we used it on @LivingWithMachines It's definitely not perfect but it let us express some important aspects of that interdisciplinary collaboration