Is there a simplified version of the CRediT (https://credit.niso.org/) taxonomy of contributor roles out there? I love the idea but never got why anyone would care about about the four different types of manager or whether someone "curated" or "collected" the data used in a paper.
@joeroe recently used the Merit system, which adds more granularity since every author can be called directly in the Methods section with initials so that everyone knows really who did what. Found it nice. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37039-1
Agreed that the distinction between "Data curation" (as a specific role) and and collection of data (as part of "Investigation") is not really useful / somewhat confusing, in #CRediT. Also, for example, aren't Methodology and Formal Analysis both part of Investigation?
So yes, I agree heartily with the more general sentiment that a simpler, clearer version of CRediT would be highly desireable. But I also think it is a really good start!
@christof@joeroe I would argue that indeed curation and collection of data are different activities, no? In my understanding, curation includes active work on the data that's been collected, to be distinguished from merely collecting them. #CRediT#taxonomy (edit: added hashtags)
@christof@joeroe and to be honest, I had rather the opposite impression when trying to use the #CRediT#taxonomy for a #DigitalScholarlyEdition (different beast than a research paper), i.e. that it does not yet cover all roles conceivable resp. indeed being involved in the process. Have to find the time to suggest adding these.
I'm not saying it is not possible to distinguish curation from collection; or from enrichment, annotation and publication. But the way these things are set up in #CRediT at the moment is just not very systematic.
But entirely agree that there are also things that are missing.
More generally speaking, I think the disciplinary scope that the CRediT designers apparently had in mind did not necessarily include the Humanities.
@christof@joeroe thank you re: lack of systematic, I get your point better now and obviously agree.
I look forward to more discussions about these and other things at #DH2024!
@dta_cthomas@christof@joeroe Isn’t this the problem that any taxonomy meant to cover a broad territory of practices is going to face? It recognizes distinctions from some communities that aren’t significant for others, while important roles are missing entirely from those communities slightly off the map. So we either have broadly implemented taxonomies that poor fit most of the labeled practices or locally relevant ones narrowly deployed. c’est la vie.
@dta_cthomas@christof@joeroe I write this even while realizing just how different the use of “editor” is in my neck of the humanities/social sciences from the relations entailed by CRediT and its implementation in the publishing platform I’m using as a journal “editor” (and that my corner of scholarship cares little about this kind of crediting).
"the sample [of authors surveyed] was relatively small and only corresponding authors were asked for their opinions. The taxonomy was developed and tested in the biomedical and life-sciences community — we have not tested its validity in other fields because we expect that there are field-specific contributor roles"
It doesn't seem like this caveat was ever followed up on.
Add comment