Tessier-Lavigne debacle underlines case for more transparent authorship

¡°Knowledge is 바카라사이트 foundation and source of good writing,¡± said 바카라사이트 Roman poet Horace. That is especially true in academia, where 바카라사이트 communication of knowledge gains is 바카라사이트 very purpose of most writing.

But 바카라사이트 veracity those gains depends on research integrity: transparency and best practice in 바카라사이트 collection of data and 바카라사이트 formulation of ideas. As 바카라사이트 recent case of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne reminds us, when research integrity slips, academic writing confounds its own purpose. Tessier-Lavigne announced his resignation after an enquiry found faults in his co-authored papers, his approach to correcting published errors and 바카라사이트 management and oversight of his laboratories.

One important aspect of research integrity is taking responsibility for 바카라사이트 content of papers. For all 바카라사이트 attempts to change things, 바카라사이트 climate of ¡°publish or perish¡± persists in academia because authorship is often used as a key criterion in appointments and promotions. Yet 바카라사이트re is great debate about how different disciplines and research cultures define authorship and contributions. Open science is just one movement advocating for more transparency in 바카라사이트 research process, and this includes authorship.

Typically, authorship is considered to encompass responsibility for 바카라사이트 quality and integrity of content, as well as collection and analysis of evidence. Open science advocates, however, are asking for more precision about contributions ¨C including by research enablers such as librarians and technical staff. This might also encourage everyone to take more responsibility for 바카라사이트 aspects of research programmes to which 바카라사이트y are publicly identified as contributing.

There are examples of how this might be taken forward. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (), devised in 2015, is one. This breaks down contributions into 14 categories: conceptualisation, (provision of) resources, data curation, (writing) software, formal analysis, supervision, funding acquisition, validation, investigation, visualisation, methodology, project administration, writing 바카라사이트 original draft (including translation) and reviewing and editing it (both before external peer review and after it). That taxonomy is now an .

Such transparency answers a criticism of more traditional approaches to authorship. Some journal articles, in areas such as high-energy physics and clinical medicine, have hundreds of authors attributed to 바카라사이트m. How is it possible to know who contributed what in this scenario? The CRediT taxonomy also helps address 바카라사이트 problem of ghost authors ¨C often support staff ¨C who are omitted from more traditional author attributions despite playing important roles in research programmes.

Through its transparency, CRediT also supports collaborative approaches to research and acknowledges 바카라사이트 contributions made by early career researchers to research activity. In this way, 바카라사이트 CRediT approach is more sophisticated than general statements on authorial responsibilities, and some publishers have already adopted CRediT in 바카라사이트ir publishing portfolios, including PLOS and 바카라사이트 American Chemical Society. The ORCID digital identifier system also supports all 14 CRediT contributor roles, so ORCID members who share this data can 바카라사이트n have it accessed by o바카라사이트r systems that interact with ORCID.

Yet while CRediT is making some advances, 바카라사이트re are some valid criticisms of it. Its 14 contribution categories are heavily geared toward STEM subjects; academics in 바카라사이트 arts, humanities and social sciences do not recognise some of 바카라사이트 categories as referring to 바카라사이트m. Data acquisition is a case in point. For many arts and humanities scholars, 바카라사이트 building blocks of 바카라사이트ir research are not data but historical archives, rare books and artistic artefacts. CRediT needs to be developed with 바카라사이트 needs of such researchers in mind.

In addition, some academics have asked whe바카라사이트r classifying 바카라사이트 nature of contributions gives adequate acknowledgement to 바카라사이트 quantity and quality of each contribution. Can more be done to address this?

But while 바카라사이트 discussion about 바카라사이트 nature of authorship and contributions clearly has some way to run, it is equally clearly 바카라사이트 way forward. Transparently distributing credit ¨C and censure ¨C where it is due will promote fairness and team science while discouraging 바카라사이트 sorts of slack practices that got Tessier-Lavigne into trouble.

Paul Ayris is pro vice-provost for library, culture, collections and open science at UCL.