Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

Abstract

Contributorship statements were introduced by scholarly journals in the late 1990s to provide more details on the specific contributions made by authors to research papers. After more than a decade of idiosyncratic taxonomies by journals, a partnership between medical journals and standards organizations has led to the establishment, in 2015, of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), which provides a standardized set of 14 research contributions. Using the data from Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals over the 2017–2018 period ( N = 30,054 papers), this paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions. It also assesses whether some contributions are more likely to be performed in conjunction with others and examines how the new taxonomy provides greater insight into the gendered nature of labor division. The paper concludes with a discussion of results with respect to current issues in research evaluation, science policy, and responsible research practices.

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

“…In addition, the effects of data-intensive research on careers should be monitored for their outcomes regarding equity. Studies of authorship contributions to publications have found a clear gender divide [ 158 ]. Women are more likely to contribute to the investigation, data curation or writing of the original draft, whereas men are more likely to contribute to tasks associated with seniority (supervision, funding acquisition, resources).…”

Intersectional inequalities in science

“…Our data consist of 5,431,451 articles indexed in the Web of Science (WOS) database and 1,609,107 distinct US first authors. We focus on first authors, as they are generally those who have contributed the most to an article ( 53 , 54 ) and represent the most visible name in bibliographic references. The metadata includes authors’ given and family names, which are used to infer race and gender.…”

Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity in academia: perspectives of women in zoology

“…They are much more frequently affected by harassment (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018), both because of their gender or sexual orientation (Hughes 2018). Women are also systematically less cited (Larivière et al 2013, Bendels et al 2018 or less credited for their work (Handley et al 2015), and the division of labor in scientific work (and subsequent publications) usually undermine the contribution of women and other minorities (Larivière et al 2020). All the beforementioned result in a lower inclusion of women in collaboration networks, especially those led by men (Araújo et al 2017).…”