“Credit where credit is due”: Authorship and Attribution in Algonquian Language Digital Resources

Bliss, Heather; Genee, Inge; Junker, Marie-Odile; O'Donnell, Daniel Paul

doi:10.21428/f1f23564.3d64b2ed

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once contributions are reported, all contributors would confirm reported roles. Another approach is adopted by the Algonquian Language Digital Resources Credit System wherein an additional free-text box allows contributors to describe roles in their own words to ensure more transparency (Bliss et al 2020).…”

Section: Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AlthoughMcNutt et al (2018) and Holcombe, (2019)explicitly noted that CRediT improves current authorship standards from an ethical perspective, some explained why this claim might not be always true. For example,Bliss et al (2020) argued that CRediT does not help distinguishing those who should be listed in the author byline from those who should be acknowledged, and, 53). Furthermore, CRediT does not provide clarity on one of the most challenging aspects of defining authorship, namely the notion of "substantial contribution"(Smith & Masters, 2017, p. 253).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A systematic scoping review of the ethics of contributor role ontologies and taxonomies

Hosseini

Gordijn

Wafford

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) provide a standard list of roles to specify individual contributions to publications. Due to the recent uptake of CROTs – CRediT taxonomy in particular, researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds have anticipated a positive impact on ethical issues related to the attribution of credit and responsibilities. Yet, they have also voiced concerns about ways in which CROTs could be abused and have provided suggestions to improve them. While these discussions explore unique ethical challenges of using CROTs from different perspectives and in different contexts, they have never been collated and consolidated. To facilitate a debate about the ethical adoption, use and future development of CROTs, the current scoping review collates and explores published viewpoints about the ethics of CROTs. Towards this end, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. In total, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently analyzed using an inductive approach. We identified eight themes and 20 specific issues related to the ethics of CROTs. Based on our survey and analysis, we provide four recommendations for CROT developers: 1) Compile and promote comprehensive instructions that explain how CROTs should be used and that note common pitfalls of employing them in practice, particularly about the scope and limitations of using CROTs in parallel to authorship bylines; 2) Improve the coherence of used terms, 3) Provide translations of roles in languages other than English, and 4) Communicate a clear vision and strategy about future development plans.

show abstract

Section: Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%