Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit
Open accessAbstract
Key points: As the number of authors on scientific publications increases, ordered lists of author names are proving inadequate for the purposes of attribution and credit. A multi‐stakeholder group has produced a contributor role taxonomy for use in scientific publications. Identifying specific contributions to published research will lead to appropriate credit, fewer author disputes, and fewer disincentives to collaboration and the sharing of data and code.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It is unclear whether existing granular attribution frameworks like CRediT will be effective for AI co-creation.
“Although existing, more granular attribution frameworks like CRediT [10] can be applied to works co-created with AI, it is unclear whether they will be effective.”
From Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Levsky, M.E, Rosin, A., Coon, T.P., Enslow W.L., and Miller, M.A. 2007. A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995-2005. Southern Medical Journal, 4(1): 371-375. http://dx.doi. org/10.1097/01.smj.0000257537.51929.4b · DOI
- Clarke, B.L. 1964. Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science, 143(3608): 822-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.143. 3608.822 · DOI
- Altman, M. and Crosas, M. 2013. The evolution of data citation: from principles to implementation. IASSIST Quarterly, 37: 62.
- Raddick, M.J., Georgia, B., Pamela, L.G., Lintott, C.J., Murray, P., Schawinski, K., Szalay, A.S., and Jan Vandenberg, J. 2010. Galaxy zoo: exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy Education Review, 9(1): 010103. http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ AER2009036 · DOI
- Wager, E. 2007. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape General Medicine, 9(3): 16.
- Einav, L. and Yariv, L. 2006. What's in a surname? the effects of sur- name initials on academic success. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1): 175-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/089533006776526085 · DOI
- Dance, A. 2012. Who's on first? Nature, 489: 591-593. http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nj7417-591a · DOI
- Bosnjak, L. and Marusic, A. 2012. Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guide- lines across disciplines. Scientometrics, 93(3): 751-763.
- Rennie, D., Yank, V., and Emanuel, L. 1997. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278(7): 579-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041 · DOI
- IWCSA Report 2012. Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, 16 May 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust. http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/ attribution_workshop.
- Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., and Altman, M. 2014. Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508: 312-313. http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/508312a · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Responsible Conduct of Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., & Welsch, R. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637875 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
“The CRediT taxonomy [1, 2, 12] for roles in authorship contribution serves the very purpose of finely declaring author involvement in different stages of scientific manuscript production (e.g., A wrote the draft, B supervised the study).”
BackgroundInvestigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)
Larivière, V., Pontille, D., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2021) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss_a_00097 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research*
Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1093/joc/jqab026 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Should Artificial Intelligent Agents be Your Co-author? Arguments in Favour, Informed by ChatGPT
Polonsky, M. J., & Rotman, J. D. (2023) · Australasian Marketing Journal · doi:10.1177/14413582231167882 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Jeon, J., Kim, L., & Park, J. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102836 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation
He, J., Houde, S., & Weisz, J. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713522 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Inui, J., Ueyama-Toba, Y., Imamura, C., Nagai, W., Asano, R., & Mizuguchi, H. (2025) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2025.123148 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J.
- Affiliations
- Digital Science (United States) (US)
- Wellcome Trust (GB)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Access Innovations
- Corresponding author
- Brand, Amy
- Allen, Liz
- Altman, Micah
- Hlava, Marjorie
- Scott, Jo
- Venue
- Learned Publishing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 151-155
- ISSN
- 0953-1513 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-4857
- OpenAlex
- W1997871319
- Cited by
- 678
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 91 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 15.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Learned Publishing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- authorship, contributor roles, attribution, author credit, research collaboration, scientific publications, data sharing, code sharing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
