4.3 Article

Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591

关键词

Attribution; authorship; contributorship; peer review; publication ethics

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [U24TR002306, UL1TR001422]
  2. National Cancer Institute [U54CA202995, U54CA202997, U54CA203000]
  3. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [P30AR072579]
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [327654276 - SFB 1315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging, but recent research suggests that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may help address these challenges. The development of tools like Contributor Role Ontology (CRO) and Contributor Attribution Model (CAM) can aid in structuring contributions and relating contributors to research objects. Adoption of a contributorship-based approach may require further discussion and consideration.
Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据