A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies

Hosseini, Mohammad; Gordijn, Bert; Wafford, Q. Eileen; Holmes, Kristi L.

doi:10.1080/08989621.2022.2161049

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next to this, important questions have been asked about whether CRediT actually reinforces the issue of incentivising competitive behaviour that does not collectively benefit researchers, as CRediT still facilitates output based evaluation of individuals (Gadd, 2020;Larivière et al, 2021) and may result in some roles being more valued than others (Gadd, 2020;Hosseini et al, 2023).…”

Section: Credit Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing a broad range of research contributions through Team Infrastructure Roles: Why CRediT is not enough

Plomp

2023

Series 3.2: Recognition and Rewards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research is increasingly reliant on larger teams with diverse skills and expertise. As a result, Team Infrastructure Roles (TIRs, Bennett et al. 2023) have gained prominence in research. These roles include Lab Technicians, Project Managers, Data Stewards, Research Community Managers, and Research Software Engineers. These specialised roles are key to the success of large research projects, and their expertise may contribute to enhancing the transparency of the research process. Yet, the current focus in research assessment on publications inadvertently sidelines supporting contributions of TIRs that may not translate directly into authorship on publications. TIR contributions are therefore invisible in research assessment if the focus remains on publications, even when contribution roles are described by the CRediT taxonomy. CRediT is a step forward as it allows for a more transparent recording of contributions, but only for a limited range of research outputs. Contributorship on tangible research outputs, while more transparent, is therefore still insufficient to evaluate all research contributions. The current research assessment system needs to be reimagined so that the entire spectrum of research activities and contributions to the research process are valued.

show abstract

Section: Credit Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuing a broad range of research contributions through Team Infrastructure Roles: Why CRediT is not enough

Plomp

2023

Series 3.2: Recognition and Rewards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In making these decisions, besides engaging user communities, appointing expert groups to reflect on received feedback and clarify future directions is necessary. Developers of CRediT and TaDiRAH have engaged with interested researchers to finalize their list of roles (Allen et al, 2012;Borek et al, 2014;2021) and have also formed management committees to coordinate required activities (CRediT working group and TaDiRAH Board).…”

Section: Deciding What Roles To Include In the Standard Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A new approach to analyse candidate roles and define conditions under which a role should be added to CROTs' standard list of roles is described in Hosseini (2021). The 'significance threshold test' is a conceptual framework to distinguish between core and non-core research roles involving two conditions: indispensability and specificity.…”

Section: Deciding What Roles To Include In the Standard Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following this framework, candidate roles that are both indispensable (i.e., so important that research objectives cannot be achieved without them) and specific (i.e., directly associated with the questions and content of research, and constructively affect the reliability, validity and the justification of the reported data, claims, results and conclusions) would be added to the standard list of vocabularies. Hosseini (2021) applies this framework to various candidate roles found in the literature, three of which are mentioned in the Data S1 to this article. One challenge of using this framework is that it requires a sophisticated analysis of roles, which is subject to personal/ disciplinary interpretations.…”

Section: Deciding What Roles To Include In the Standard Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, a specific role may pass the test in one domain but fail to satisfy both conditions in another domain (so-called inconclusive roles). Hosseini (2021) suggests that excluding these roles from standard lists would exclude relevant contributions on the basis that they are not of general interest to all areas, thereby denying researchers who make these contributions to be explicitly acknowledged. Including them, on the other hand, would add roles to the standard list that do not apply to all disciplines, yet are explicitly mentioned in the list of roles.…”

Section: Deciding What Roles To Include In the Standard Listsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolution and adoption of contributor role ontologies and taxonomies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) are standard vocabularies to describe individual contributions to a scholarly project or research output. Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is one of the most widely used CROTs, and has been adopted by numerous journals to describe author's contributions, and recently formalized as a ANSI/NISO standard. Despite these developments, there is still much work left to be done to improve how CROTs are used across different research domains, research output types, and scholarly workflows. In this paper, we describe how CROTs could be extended to include roles from various disciplines in an ethical and inclusive manner. We explore potential approaches to apply CROTs to diverse research objects and various disciplines; as well as envision their integration into various scholarly workflows, such as promotion and tenure in academic institutions. Lastly, we discuss potential mechanisms for wide adoption and use. While acknowledging that improving current systems of attribution is a slow and iterative process, we believe that engaging the community in the evolution of CROTs will ultimately enhance the ethical attribution of credit and responsibilities in scholarly publications.

show abstract

Evidence-Based Research Integrity

Marušić

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter discusses the challenges to research integrity from the perspective of good research practices as defined by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: 1) research environment, 2) training, supervision and mentoring, 3) research procedures, 4) safeguards, 5) data practices and management, 6) collaborative working, 7) publication and dissemination, and 8) reviewing, evaluating and editing.

show abstract

A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Valuing a broad range of research contributions through Team Infrastructure Roles: Why CRediT is not enough

Valuing a broad range of research contributions through Team Infrastructure Roles: Why CRediT is not enough

Evolution and adoption of contributor role ontologies and taxonomies

Evidence-Based Research Integrity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About