Co-contributorship Network and Division of Labor in Individual Scientific Collaborations

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co-contributorship networks. Co-contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one-mode projection of the author-task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 papers published in PLoS journals. Given a paper, we define three types of contributors: Specialists, Team-players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team-players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team-players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the five most common tasks as expected, such as "data analysis" and "performing experiments". The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by a random-graph null model. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervisions. Specialists are associated with two contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributions.Comment: accepted by JASIS

Are research contributions assigned differently under the two contributorship classification systems in PLoS ONE?

Contributorship statements have been effective at recording granular author contributions in research articles and have been broadly used to understand how labor is divided across research teams. However, one major limitation in existing empirical studies is that two classification systems have been adopted, especially from its most important data source, journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS). This research aims to address this limitation by developing a mapping scheme between the two systems and using it to understand whether there are differences in the assignment of contribution by authors under the two systems. We use all research articles published in PLoS ONE between 2012 to 2020, divided into two five-year publication windows centered by the shift of the classification systems in 2016. Our results show that most tasks (except for writing- and resource-related tasks) are used similarly under the two systems. Moreover, notable differences between how researchers used the two systems are also examined and discussed. This research offers an important foundation for empirical research on division of labor in the future, by enabling a larger dataset that crosses both, and potentially other, classification systems

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors’ seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as ‘technical’ and those that could be considered ‘conceptual’: While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science

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

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

Report on the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3)

This report records and discusses the Third Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE3). The report includes a description of the keynote presentation of the workshop, which served as an overview of sustainable scientific software. It also summarizes a set of lightning talks in which speakers highlighted to-the-point lessons and challenges pertaining to sustaining scientific software. The final and main contribution of the report is a summary of the discussions, future steps, and future organization for a set of self-organized working groups on topics including developing pathways to funding scientific software; constructing useful common metrics for crediting software stakeholders; identifying principles for sustainable software engineering design; reaching out to research software organizations around the world; and building communities for software sustainability. For each group, we include a point of contact and a landing page that can be used by those who want to join that group's future activities. The main challenge left by the workshop is to see if the groups will execute these activities that they have scheduled, and how the WSSSPE community can encourage this to happen

A Systematic Review of Scientific Collaboration Studies by Iranian Authors

Scientific collaboration indicates active teamwork between researchers beyond the simple exchange of material or information. This study is a systematic review of the papers published by Iranian researchers, aiming to provide comprehensive indicators, methodologies, and software used for evaluating scientific collaboration. According to guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook, the national and international databases were used for searching by English and Persian keywords without any time limitations. The retrieved articles were managed using EndNote software. By applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 201 articles remained for this review. These articles were selected from 93 domestic and foreign journals between 2000 and 2019. The studies used 16 software to extract and analyze scientific collaboration indicators. Systematic review shows that bibliometric and network analysis methods were the main approaches used in scientific collaboration studies among papers published by Iranian researchers (93.5%). More than 25 indicators were extracted from these studies, and they were categorized into patterns of collaboration and co-authorship network analysis. Researchers have revealed an increasing interest in the factors affecting scientific collaboration in recent years. The present study provides comprehensive information on the articles published by Iranian researchers on scientific collaboration. The methodologies and software were identified that are most often used to evaluate scientific collaboration and adapted to direct future research. Still, a variety of indicators situates them in heterogeneous methods of research. This analytical perspective does not locate the evaluation of scientific collaboration at a single spot. Future scientific collaboration studies will continue to evolve to offer more powerful indicators for assessing the knowledge flow status quo.https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20088302.2022.20.2.13.

La distribution ‘juste’ de la signature savante dans les collaborations de recherche multidisciplinaire en sciences de la santé

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé.Authorship of scientific publications is a means of recognizing both a researcher’s contribution to a paper as well as their responsibility for the integrity of their work. Various approaches to author order may be used to rank individuals and convey the extent of their contribution. For example, authors may be listed by decreasing level of contribution, whereby most credit and responsibility are allocated to the first authors (common in the health sciences), or they may be named in alphabetical order, giving equal recognition to all (common in the social sciences). There are also “rules of thumb” or preferred practices that exist in the respective disciplines or research fields (e.g., corresponding author first, Principal Investigator last). In the case of multidisciplinary health research, differing norms and practices regarding authorship distribution may be held by the respective team members; and, this can give rise to disagreement and even conflict within research teams. Although researchers and scholarly organizations agree that authorship should be distributed “fairly”, a shared understanding or consensus as to what constitutes fairness, as well as its practical implementation in multidisciplinary research collaborations, remains a significant challenge. This thesis proposes a conceptual ethical framework for the fair distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary health sciences research. At the outset, the various methods recommended by journals, learned societies, as well as in the academic literature to distribute authorship are critically reviewed; issues that may impede or complicate fair authorship distribution in multidisciplinary research are highlighted; these include, for example, power differentials, conflicts of interests, and conflicting disciplinary norms and cultures. The analysis will show that current universal normative authorship guidelines are overly broad, and therefore, are insufficient to effectively resolve many of the diverse issues that are often specific to differing contexts of research. As will be discussed, the limitations of such guidelines are particularly significant in the case of global health collaborations that involve researchers from low and middle income countries and those from high income countries. A theoretical approach influenced by T.M. Scanlon’s Contractualism is proposed as a means of achieving the flexibility needed for the diversity of multidisciplinary research contexts; mutual agreement and reasonability are used to determine whether ethical principles are “fair”. Four central and interconnected principles – desert, just recognition, transparency and collegiality – are presented as the conceptual foundation to support the development of a process for the fair distribution of authorship. This authorship distribution process integrates the detailed research tasks commonly used in “contributorship” taxonomies to delineate individual duties and roles in the research project and subsequent publication. Contributions are then compared and valued more efficiently to determine authorship order while promoting fairness in multidisciplinary health sciences research

An agenda-setting paper on data sharing platforms: euCanSHare workshop [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Various data sharing platforms are being developed to enhance the sharing of cohort data by addressing the fragmented state of data storage and access systems. However, policy challenges in several domains remain unresolved. The euCanSHare workshop was organized to identify and discuss these challenges and to set the future research agenda. Concerns over the multiplicity and long-term sustainability of platforms, lack of resources, access of commercial parties to medical data, credit and recognition mechanisms in academia and the organization of data access committees are outlined. Within these areas, solutions need to be devised to ensure an optimal functioning of platforms

Ten strategies for avoiding and overcoming authorship conflicts in academic publishing

For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions

The rise of the middle author : investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship

Contemporary biomedical research is performed by increasingly large teams. Consequently, an increasingly large number of individuals are being listed as authors in the bylines, which complicates the proper attribution of credit and responsibility to individual authors. Typically, more importance is given to the first and last authors, while it is assumed that the others (the middle authors) have made smaller contributions. However, this may not properly reflect the actual division of labor because some authors other than the first and last may have made major contributions. In practice, research teams may differentiate the main contributors from the rest by using partial alphabetical authorship (i.e., by listing middle authors alphabetically, while maintaining a contribution-based order for more substantial contributions). In this paper, we use partial alphabetical authorship to divide the authors of all biomedical articles in the Web of Science published over the 1980–2015 period in three groups: primary authors, middle authors, and supervisory authors. We operationalize the concept of middle author as those who are listed in alphabetical order in the middle of an authors’ list. Primary and supervisory authors are those listed before and after the alphabetical sequence, respectively. We show that alphabetical ordering of middle authors is frequent in biomedical research, and that the prevalence of this practice is positively correlated with the number of authors in the bylines. We also find that, for articles with 7 or more authors, the average proportion of primary, middle and supervisory authors is independent of the team size, more than half of the authors being middle authors. This suggests that growth in authors lists are not due to an increase in secondary contributions (or middle authors) but, rather, in equivalent increases of all types of roles and contributions (including many primary authors and many supervisory authors). Nevertheless, we show that the relative contribution of alphabetically ordered middle authors to the overall production of knowledge in the biomedical field has greatly increased over the last 35 years