Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what

Full Text:


Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional concept of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship model, under which it is not necessary to contribute to the writing or revision of a manuscript, and all those who make substantial contributions to a project are credited. Many journals and publishers have already taken steps in this direction, and further adoption will have several benefi This article makes the case for continuing to move down that path. Use of a contributorship model should improve the ability of universities and funders to identify effective individual researchers and improving their ability to identify the right mix of researchers needed to advance modern science. Other benefi should include facilitating the formation of productive collaborations and the creation of important scientifi tools and software. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy is a machine-readable standard already incorporated into some journal management systems and it allows incremental transition toward contributorship.

About the Author

A. O. Holcombe
The University of Sydney

Alex O. Holcombe, School of Psychology




1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Updated December 2018. Available at: (accessed on 20 June 2019).

2. American Psychological Association. Publication Practices & Responsible Authorship. Available at: (accessed on 11 June 2019).

3. Rennie D., Yank V., Emanuel L. When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA. 1997;278(7):579–585. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041.

4. Patience G. S., Galli F., Patience P. A., Boito D.C. Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(1):e0198117. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198117.

5. Resnik D. B. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics. 1997;3(3):237–243. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5.

6. McNutt M. K., Bradford M., Drazen J. M., Hanson B., Howard B., Jamieson K. H., Kiermer V., Marcus E., Pope B. K., Schekman R. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. PNAS. 2018;115(11):2557–2560. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115.

7. Nature Publishing Group. Nature Research Journals’ Authorship Policy. Available at: (accessed on 11 June 2019).

8. Resnik D. B., Tyler A. M., Black J. R., Kissling G. Authorship policies of scientific journals. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016;42(3):199–202. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103171.

9. Authorship policies. Nature. 2009;458:1078. DOI: 10.1038/4581078a.

10. Greenland P., Fontanarosa P. B. Ending Honorary Authorship. Science. 2012;337(6098):1019. DOI: 10.1126/science.1224988.

11. Kumar S. Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations. Publications. 2018;6(3):37. DOI: 10.3390/publications6030037.

12. Cutas D., Shaw D. Writers blocked: On the wrongs of research co-authorship and some possible strategies for improvement. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015;21(5):1315–1329. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9606-0.

13. Shen S. X. Negotiating authorship in Chinese universities: How organizations shape cycles of credit in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2016;41(4):660–685. DOI: 10.1177/0162243915622265.

14. Beaumont M. A., Rannala B. The Bayesian revolution in genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2004;5:251–261. DOI: 10.1038/nrg1318.

15. Rylance R. Grant giving: Global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature. 2015;525(7569):313–315. DOI: 10.1038/525313a.

16. Lyall C., Bruce A., Marsden W., Meagher L. The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy. 2013;40(1):62–71. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scs121.

17. ADAlthousePhD. [Twitter Post]. It’s Kind of Up to Individual Institutions to Police Their Faculty, but Complaining about This Can Make You a Pariah or Get You a Reputation as Being “Diicult” (for the Outrageous Demand of Wanting Credit for Your Work...). Available at: (accessed on 8 March 2019).

18. Ridley A. Now Is the Time for a Team-Based Approach to Team Science. The Academy of Medical Sciences Website. 2019. Available at: (accessed on 11 May 2019).

19. Allen L., Scott J., Brand A., Hlava M., Altman M. Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature. 2014;508(7496):312–313. DOI: 10.1038/508312a.

20. Brand A., Allen L., Altman M., Hlava M., Scott J. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing. 2015;28(2):151–155. DOI: 10.1087/20150211.

21. Allen L., O’Connell A., Kiermer V. How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing. 2019;32(1):71–74. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1210.

22. PLoS. Available at: (accessed on 13 March 2019).

23. Holcombe A. O., Vazire S., Chartier C. R. Replace Journals’ Writing-Based Authorship Guidelines with a Contributorship Model. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 7–9 July 2019.


For citations:

Holcombe A.O. Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what. Science Editor and Publisher. 2020;5(2):123-134. (In Russ.)

Views: 1007

ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)