Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles

Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) provide a standard list of roles to specify individual contributions to research. CROTs most common application has been their inclusion alongside author bylines in scholarly publications. With the recent uptake of CROTs among publishers -particularly the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT)- some have anticipated a positive impact on ethical issues regarding the attribution of credit and responsibilities, but others have voiced concerns about CROTs shortcomings and ways they could be misunderstood or have unintended consequences. Since these discussions have never been consolidated, this review collated and explored published viewpoints about the ethics of CROTs. After searching Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. We identified eight themes and 20 specific issues related to the ethics of CROTs and provided four recommendations for CROT developers, custodians, or others seeking to use CROTs in their workflows, policy and practice: 1) Compile comprehensive instructions that explain how CROTs should be used; 2) Improve the coherence of used terms, 3) Translate roles in languages other than English, 4) Communicate a clear vision about future development plans and be transparent about CROTs' strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that CROTs are not the panacea for unethical attributions and should be complemented with initiatives that support social and infrastructural transformation of scholarly publications.

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider's timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Big team science initiatives: A catalyst for trustworthy advancements in IO psychology

Keener et al. (2023) raise concerns about the trustworthiness of Industrial/Organizational (IO) Psychology research and related fields due to the low reproducibility and replicability of research findings. The authors provide various solutions to resolve this crisis, such as improving training, realigning incentives, and adopting open science practices. Our commentary elaborates on one solution to which they briefly allude: Big Team Science Initiatives (BTSIs). BTSIs allow scholars to address the trustworthiness of our science by facilitating large sample theory testing, sharing and allocating resources, and selecting appropriate research strategies, all of which support the reproducibility and replication of research. Further, we propose that BTSIs may facilitate researcher training, encourage data sharing and materials, and realign incentives in our field. We discuss how BTSIs could be implemented in IO psychology and related fields, identifying and drawing upon similar BTSIs in related disciplines. Thus, our commentary is an extension of the focal article, encouraging scholars to collaboratively address the "crisis of confidence" facing our field using a big team science approach.

Sequestration of steroidal estrogen in aqueous samples using an adsorption mechanism: a systemic scientometric review

Steroidal estrogens (SEs) remain one of the notable endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that pose a significant threat to the aquatic environment in this era owing to their interference with the normal metabolic functions of the human body systems. They are currently identified as emerging contaminants of water sources. The sources of SEs are either natural or synthetic active ingredients in oral contraceptive and hormonal replacement therapy drugs and enter the environment primarily from excretes in the form of active free conjugate radicals, resulting in numerous effects on organisms in aquatic habitats and humans. The removal of SEs from water sources is of great importance because of their potential adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health. Adsorption techniques have gained considerable attention as effective methods for the removal of these contaminants. A systemic review and bibliometric analysis of the application of adsorption for sequestration were carried out. Metadata for publications on SE removal utilizing adsorbents were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) from January 1, 1990, to November 5, 2022 (107 documents) and Scopus databases from January 1, 1949, to November 5, 2022 (77 documents). In total, 137 documents (134 research and 4 review articles) were used to systematically map bibliometric indicators, such as the number of articles, most prolific countries, most productive scholars, and most cited articles, confirming this to be a growing research area. The use of different adsorbents, include activated carbon graphene-based materials, single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes, biochar, zeolite, and nanocomposites. The adsorption mechanism and factors affecting the removal efficiency, such as pH, temperature, initial concentration, contact time and adsorbent properties, were investigated in this review. This review discusses the advantages and limitations of different adsorbents, including their adsorption capacities, regenerative potential, and cost-effectiveness. Recent advances and innovations in adsorption technology, such as functionalized materials and hybrid systems, have also been highlighted. Overall, the bibliographic analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the adsorption technique for the removal of SEs from other sources, serving as a valuable resource for researchers and policymakers involved in the development of efficient and sustainable strategies to mitigate the effects of these emerging contaminants.

The "Monsanto papers" and the nature of ghostwriting and related practices in contemporary peer review scientific literature

The Monsanto company - now acquired by Bayer - has been accused of ghostwriting articles within peer review literature, with the goal of using influential names to front its content in defence of the herbicide Roundup. Here, I conduct a detailed analysis of three Monsanto review articles and a five-article journal supplement for which detailed information from company emails is publicly available following litigation over Roundup. All the articles had external, but not Monsanto authors, and ghostly practices including ghost authorship, corporate ghost authorship and ghost management were evident in their development. There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - in only two cases. I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. The articles complied with the disclosure requirements of their journals, save for the journal supplement. While crude ghostwriting did occur, much of the literature involved subtler practices through which Monsanto exercised control over content, while the attribution of the articles downplayed the company's role - and correspondingly aggrandized that of the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations. I discuss these cultural problems and consider remedies.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.

How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations

The past decade has witnessed a proliferation of big team science (BTS), endeavours where a comparatively large number of researchers pool their intellectual and/or material resources in pursuit of a common goal. Despite this burgeoning interest, there exists little guidance on how to create, manage and participate in these collaborations. In this paper, we integrate insights from a multi-disciplinary set of BTS initiatives to provide a how-to guide for BTS. We first discuss initial considerations for launching a BTS project, such as building the team, identifying leadership, governance, tools and open science approaches. We then turn to issues related to running and completing a BTS project, such as study design, ethical approvals and issues related to data collection, management and analysis. Finally, we address topics that present special challenges for BTS, including authorship decisions, collaborative writing and team decision-making.

A mixed method assessment of research productivity on microplastics in various compartments in the environment

Microplastic distribution and pollution as emerging contaminants have become a leading environmental issue globally, owing to their ecological and health implications on biota and humans. Although several bibliometric studies have been reported on microplastics, they are mostly restricted to selected environmental media. As a result, the present study aimed at assessing the literature growth trend of microplastics-related research and their distribution in the environment using a bibliometric approach. The Web of Science Core Collection was explored to retrieve published articles on microplastics from 2006 to 2021, and the data were analysed using the Biblioshiny package of RStudio. This study also highlighted filtration, separation, coagulation, membrane technology, flotation, bionanomaterials, bubble barrier devices, and sedimentation as MP remediation techniques. In the present study, a total of 1118 documents were collected from the literature search; the documents/author and authors/document were 0.308 and 3.25, respectively. A significant growth rate of 65.36% was recorded with notable progress between 2018 and 2021. China, the USA, Germany, the UK, and Italy recorded the highest number of publications within the period under consideration. A collaboration index of 3.32 was also relatively high, with the Netherlands, Malaysia, Iran, France, and Mexico having the highest MCP ratios, respectively. It is anticipated that findings from this study will help the policymakers in addressing issues concerning microplastic pollution assist the researchers in identifying areas to concentrate their studies, and where to seek collaboration in their future research plans.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13762-023-04916-7.

Reward systems for cohort data sharing: An interview study with funding agencies

Data infrastructures are being constructed to facilitate cohort data sharing. These infrastructures are anticipated to increase the rate of data sharing. However, the lack of data sharing has also been framed as being the consequence of the lack of reputational or financial incentives for sharing. Some initiatives try to confer value onto data sharing by making researchers' individual contributions to research visible (i.e., contributorship) or by quantifying the degree to which research data has been shared (e.g., data indicators). So far, the role of downstream evaluation and funding distribution systems for reputational incentives remains underexplored. This interview study documents the perspectives of members of funding agencies on, amongst other elements, incentives for data sharing. Funding agencies are adopting narrative CVs to encourage evaluation of diverse research outputs and display diversity in researchers' profiles. This was argued to diminish the focus on quantitative indicators of scientific productivity. Indicators related to open science dimensions may be reintroduced if they are fully developed. Shifts towards contributorship models for research outputs are seen as complementary to narrative review.

In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Engaging the open science framework in quantifying and tracing scientists' research credits

Preface illustration. The "first-last-author-credit" hierarchy has long been dominated in the scientific incentive system despite intensive calling for contribution-based credits (author contribution statement). In the scientific communities, senior researchers would still make a decision to recommend one's promotion based on first and last positions in authorship rather than their contributions. Similarly, in the job market, institutions would acknowledge one's credit by positions in authorship in a study for faculty recruitment, while overlooking the author contribution statement at the end of studies. Thus, the current authorship system has brought on the risks underlying authorship disputes and race/gender inequalities in credit allocation heavily, especially for early career researchers and female scientists. In addition, this is one of the major barriers to extend teamwork and academic collaboration. On the contrary, scrambling for first and last positions leads to prominent credit inflation-that is to be observed-the number of co-first and co-corresponding authors has been increasing dramatically. Thus, we shall propose a new contributionship to acknowledge the author's credit for an open science and quantitative framework to tackle these issues. Credit: ZC and XRL.

A bibliometric analysis of pre- and post-Stockholm Convention research publications on the Dirty Dozen Chemicals (DDCs) in the African environment

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are toxic chemicals that stay in the environment for a long time. To address the toxicity issues, global nations, including 53 African countries, ratified the Stockholm Convention to minimize or eliminate the production of 12 POPs known as the "Dirty Dozen". However, these Dirty Dozen Chemicals (DDCs) still exist in significant concentration in the African environment, prompting numerous research to investigate the level of their occurrences. Here, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine the publication trends in DDCs-related research in Africa using articles published between 1949 and 2021 from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. A total of 884 articles were published within the survey period, with a publication/author and author/publication ratio of 0.36 and 2.76, respectively. South Africa ranked first in terms of number of publications (n = 133, 15.05%), and total citations (n = 3115), followed by Egypt (n = 117), Nigeria (n = 77), USA (n = 40), and Ghana (n = 38). Research collaboration was relatively high (collaboration index = 2.88). The insignificant difference between the theoretical and observed Lotka's distribution indicates Lotka's law does not fit the DDC literature. An annual growth rate of 0.57% implies that a substantial increase of articles in years to come is not expected. More research programs should be established in other African countries to measure up to South Africa's supremacy. This is critical in order to provide a basis for effective compliance to the Stockholm Convention on POPs in Africa.

Dataset of identified scholars mentioned in acknowledgement statements

Acknowledgements represent scholars' relationships as part of the research contribution. While co-authors and citations are often provided as a well-formatted bibliometric database, acknowledged individuals are difficult to identify because they appear as part of the statements in the paper. We identify acknowledged scholars who appeared in papers published in open-access journals by referring to the co-author and citation relationships stored in the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG). Therefore, the constructed dataset is compatible with MAG, which accelerates and expands the acknowledgements as a data source of scholarly relationships similar to collaboration and citation analysis. Moreover, the implemented code is publicly available; thus, it can be applied in other studies.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study

Background

The European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data.

Objective

The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research.

Methods

A total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Interviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues.

Conclusions

The evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.

Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles

PURPOSE

The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them.

METHODS

CNODES articles (published 2012-2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to "indeterminate." T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology.

An Open-Publishing Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the rapid dissemination of papers and preprints investigating the disease and its associated virus, SARS-CoV-2. The multifaceted nature of COVID-19 demands a multidisciplinary approach, but the urgency of the crisis combined with the need for social distancing measures present unique challenges to collaborative science. We applied a massive online open publishing approach to this problem using Manubot. Through GitHub, collaborators summarized and critiqued COVID-19 literature, creating a review manuscript. Manubot automatically compiled citation information for referenced preprints, journal publications, websites, and clinical trials. Continuous integration workflows retrieved up-to-date data from online sources nightly, regenerating some of the manuscript's figures and statistics. Manubot rendered the manuscript into PDF, HTML, LaTeX, and DOCX outputs, immediately updating the version available online upon the integration of new content. Through this effort, we organized over 50 scientists from a range of backgrounds who evaluated over 1,500 sources and developed seven literature reviews. While many efforts from the computational community have focused on mining COVID-19 literature, our project illustrates the power of open publishing to organize both technical and non-technical scientists to aggregate and disseminate information in response to an evolving crisis.

An Open-Publishing Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the rapid dissemination of papers and preprints investigating the disease and its associated virus, SARS-CoV-2. The multifaceted nature of COVID-19 demands a multidisciplinary approach, but the urgency of the crisis combined with the need for social distancing measures present unique challenges to collaborative science. We applied a massive online open publishing approach to this problem using Manubot. Through GitHub, collaborators summarized and critiqued COVID-19 literature, creating a review manuscript. Manubot automatically compiled citation information for referenced preprints, journal publications, websites, and clinical trials. Continuous integration workflows retrieved up-to-date data from online sources nightly, regenerating some of the manuscript's figures and statistics. Manubot rendered the manuscript into PDF, HTML, LaTeX, and DOCX outputs, immediately updating the version available online upon the integration of new content. Through this effort, we organized over 50 scientists from a range of backgrounds who evaluated over 1,500 sources and developed seven literature reviews. While many efforts from the computational community have focused on mining COVID-19 literature, our project illustrates the power of open publishing to organize both technical and non-technical scientists to aggregate and disseminate information in response to an evolving crisis.

Publication Ethics

Publications in the field of medical literature are a matter of prestige and fame for doctors. While genuine research contributes to the existing scientific knowledge, fraudulent data make publication unreliable, demeans the credibility of the author and reduces faith in science. Research misconduct includes the three cardinal sins fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. To promote highest standards in publication ethics, Committee on Publication Ethics provides advice and guidance to journals and publishers. Investigators should abide by ethical norms during the conduct of the research. Journals also maintain editorial standards and have well-defined policies for responding to misconduct. With an increase in medical publications over the years, it is important for all stakeholders to abide by publication ethics, in order to uphold the sanctity of research and credence in science.

CRediT for authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association

To help ensure that authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) receive appropriate recognition for their contributions and to make individual author roles more transparent to readers, JMLA articles will begin including Author Contribution statements using the Contributor Role Taxonomy.

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Purpose

Authorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.

Design/methodology/approach

To appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.

Findings

Academic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.

Originality/value

Within the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

From Reductionism to Reintegration: Solving society's most pressing problems requires building bridges between data types across the life sciences

Decades of reductionist approaches in biology have achieved spectacular progress, but the proliferation of subdisciplines, each with its own technical and social practices regarding data, impedes the growth of the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches now needed to address pressing societal challenges. Data integration is key to a reintegrated biology able to address global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable ecosystem management. We identify major challenges to data integration and present a vision for a "Data as a Service"-oriented architecture to promote reuse of data for discovery. The proposed architecture includes standards development, new tools and services, and strategies for career-development and sustainability.

Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing

Scholars traditionally receive career credit for a paper based on where in the author list they appear, but position in an author list often carries little information about what the contribution of each researcher was. "Contributorship" refers to a movement to formally document the nature of each researcher's contribution to a project. We discuss the emerging CRediT standard for documenting contributions and describe a web-based app and R package called tenzing that is designed to facilitate its use. tenzing can make it easier for researchers on a project to plan and record their planned contributions and to document those contributions in a journal article.