User login
Although many scientific journals try to provide details about authors’ contributions to a publication by requiring explicit statements, contribution statements get much less attention than authorship order, according to research published in Science Advances.
Researchers surveyed more than 6000 corresponding authors of studies published in recent years and found they consider contribution statements helpful for understanding the specific skills individual authors bring to a study.
However, the respondents said they still use author order for deciphering which authors did how much of the work and deserve most of the credit.
“The lack of uniformity and detail in contribution statements leaves open the door for varied interpretations, which could be why only a minority of respondents found them more useful than author order,” said Henry Sauermann, PhD, of ESMT Berlin in Germany.
Dr Sauermann and his colleagues also examined the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 published articles.
The contribution statements studied did include information about the types of work contributed by each author. However, multiple authors could be listed under the same contributions, and the statements had little information about the level of effort for each author.
The statements also said little about how important a particular contribution was for project success.
Still, Dr Sauermann and his colleagues noted that author order has its own problems.
“When we talked to scientists, many think that there are certain norms, and they know how to interpret author order,” Dr Sauermann said. “But when you really push, it’s not clear at all, at least not at the level of detail we need.”
That’s further complicated by the fact that conventions of author order vary depending on the research field.
This work also revealed a difference of opinion between junior and senior researchers, with the former caring more strongly about contribution statements and how they are discussed and crafted.
“When we read open-ended responses to our survey questions, we got the impression of a really divided community,” Dr Sauermann said. “Some believe that forcing more detail in contribution statements is great, and some are concerned that it could really hurt teamwork and collaboration. It’s not that everyone is lukewarm; many really care.”
That level of interest could pave the way for more discussion, which is something Dr Sauermann said is ultimately needed for the scientific and research community to move forward and add more clarity to the process.
“This is not going to get any easier,” Dr Sauermann said. “It’s going to get harder as how we perform research changes and as teams get bigger and more diverse.” 
Although many scientific journals try to provide details about authors’ contributions to a publication by requiring explicit statements, contribution statements get much less attention than authorship order, according to research published in Science Advances.
Researchers surveyed more than 6000 corresponding authors of studies published in recent years and found they consider contribution statements helpful for understanding the specific skills individual authors bring to a study.
However, the respondents said they still use author order for deciphering which authors did how much of the work and deserve most of the credit.
“The lack of uniformity and detail in contribution statements leaves open the door for varied interpretations, which could be why only a minority of respondents found them more useful than author order,” said Henry Sauermann, PhD, of ESMT Berlin in Germany.
Dr Sauermann and his colleagues also examined the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 published articles.
The contribution statements studied did include information about the types of work contributed by each author. However, multiple authors could be listed under the same contributions, and the statements had little information about the level of effort for each author.
The statements also said little about how important a particular contribution was for project success.
Still, Dr Sauermann and his colleagues noted that author order has its own problems.
“When we talked to scientists, many think that there are certain norms, and they know how to interpret author order,” Dr Sauermann said. “But when you really push, it’s not clear at all, at least not at the level of detail we need.”
That’s further complicated by the fact that conventions of author order vary depending on the research field.
This work also revealed a difference of opinion between junior and senior researchers, with the former caring more strongly about contribution statements and how they are discussed and crafted.
“When we read open-ended responses to our survey questions, we got the impression of a really divided community,” Dr Sauermann said. “Some believe that forcing more detail in contribution statements is great, and some are concerned that it could really hurt teamwork and collaboration. It’s not that everyone is lukewarm; many really care.”
That level of interest could pave the way for more discussion, which is something Dr Sauermann said is ultimately needed for the scientific and research community to move forward and add more clarity to the process.
“This is not going to get any easier,” Dr Sauermann said. “It’s going to get harder as how we perform research changes and as teams get bigger and more diverse.”
Although many scientific journals try to provide details about authors’ contributions to a publication by requiring explicit statements, contribution statements get much less attention than authorship order, according to research published in Science Advances.
Researchers surveyed more than 6000 corresponding authors of studies published in recent years and found they consider contribution statements helpful for understanding the specific skills individual authors bring to a study.
However, the respondents said they still use author order for deciphering which authors did how much of the work and deserve most of the credit.
“The lack of uniformity and detail in contribution statements leaves open the door for varied interpretations, which could be why only a minority of respondents found them more useful than author order,” said Henry Sauermann, PhD, of ESMT Berlin in Germany.
Dr Sauermann and his colleagues also examined the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 published articles.
The contribution statements studied did include information about the types of work contributed by each author. However, multiple authors could be listed under the same contributions, and the statements had little information about the level of effort for each author.
The statements also said little about how important a particular contribution was for project success.
Still, Dr Sauermann and his colleagues noted that author order has its own problems.
“When we talked to scientists, many think that there are certain norms, and they know how to interpret author order,” Dr Sauermann said. “But when you really push, it’s not clear at all, at least not at the level of detail we need.”
That’s further complicated by the fact that conventions of author order vary depending on the research field.
This work also revealed a difference of opinion between junior and senior researchers, with the former caring more strongly about contribution statements and how they are discussed and crafted.
“When we read open-ended responses to our survey questions, we got the impression of a really divided community,” Dr Sauermann said. “Some believe that forcing more detail in contribution statements is great, and some are concerned that it could really hurt teamwork and collaboration. It’s not that everyone is lukewarm; many really care.”
That level of interest could pave the way for more discussion, which is something Dr Sauermann said is ultimately needed for the scientific and research community to move forward and add more clarity to the process.
“This is not going to get any easier,” Dr Sauermann said. “It’s going to get harder as how we perform research changes and as teams get bigger and more diverse.”