Is it time to CRediT contributions to research projects more transparently?
Author lists on articles are often not reflective of who did the underlying work. "CRediT" may be the right tool to remedy this issue. Come and voice your opinion on this topic at the workshop on November 3rd!
Two sides of the same coin": A column in Inside Health
In Two Sides of the Same Coin, Chair of the Academic Council Søren Dinesen Østergaard provides insight into the debates that occupy the council.
The column addresses topics where council members have different viewpoints – often questions that also create discussion in the academic communities at Health.
Conflicts regarding authorship are unfortunately a recurring topic at meetings in the Academic Council and were also discussed at our meeting on October 23rd in relation to the annual report from the advisors on responsible conduct of research and freedom of research.
Authorship disputes represent an unresolved problem that is of great concern to both the Academic Council and the deanery.
Particularly because it is often the youngest researchers who pay the highest prize. Therefore, the first of two workshops entitled "Research Integrity - with a focus on authorship" was held at Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies on September 30th.
After an introduction to the topic by the deanery, associate professor Sebastian Frische gave a presentation based on the so-called "Contributor Role Taxonomy" (CRediT). This gave rise to a very exciting group and plenary discussion among the participants.
Author lists are a rather poor declaration of contents
Most researchers - okay, let's face it, virtually all researchers - know that there's often substantial variance in how much the individual authors on a paper have actually contributed to the underlying work.
The Vancouver criteria define the requirements for authorship, but are unfortunately often disregarded - particularly by experienced researchers who demand authorship without meeting the criteria.
Since authorships in academic contexts are converted approximately 1:1 into merit, this questionable behaviour constitutes a major problem for a system that - to a large extent - is based on meritocracy.
CRediT is a tool that enables a much more fine-grained and transparent declaration of research than the authorship list allows. CRediT defines 14 roles that rather exhaustively cover the work that occurs in connection with the preparation, execution, and reporting of research.
The idea behind the system is that contributions to a research product (e.g., an article) are declared according to the 14 CRediT roles, so that everyone involved - including those who don't necessarily qualify for authorship (e.g., technical administrative staff and students) - are also credited.
If CRediT is used as intended, it will also foster more informed discussions regarding authorships (as lack of contribution is documented) and prevent conflicts on that basis.
Won't it just be a waste of time?
Critics will quickly speak up: It's a waste of time! What do we gain from it if other institutions don't follow suit?
These are valid objections.
Come and discuss both sides of the issue with us at workshop number two, which will be held Monday November 3rd at Aarhus University Hospital in room G206-145 from 15:00 to 17:30 (This workshop will be held in Danish. The first workshop was held in English).
Registration is not necessary.
Contact
Professor and Council Chair Søren Dinesen Østergaard
Aarhus University, Department of Clinical Medicine
Academic Council, Health - Aarhus University
sdo@clin.au.dk
Tel: +45 61282753