Research assistants: Scientific credit and recognized authorship

Research assistants are frequently excluded from authorship for several reasons—including the perception that they merely provide paid administrative help. Authorship criteria should be based on people who both shapers and doers rather than ICMJE recommendations which can differently interpreted. The pressure single-authored papers in some disciplines may lead to exclusion of substantive contributors lists. CRediT taxonomy is a preferable means recognizing rewarding authors but find resistance those unwilling disclose exact contributions. Publishers assist all contributing by requiring affirmation have significantly contributed credited as authors. employment research (RAs) extremely common academia. RAs junior researchers—from undergraduate students postdocs—employed variety purposes, often including conducting literature reviews, data collection, analysis so forth piece publishable work. More few aspire an academic career. practice credit these individuals through special mention acknowledgements section. However, this lacks transparency, does not consider significant contribution make has little no bearing their future careers. currency academia published works—being recognized author. best support early career researchers would thus include them author when contribute RA. But how topic co-authorship broached, what constitutes enough warrant being designated author? These questions asked themselves each other were employed and, recently, employers In article, we critically discuss contributions works, efforts fit (or do fit) within definition author, work outside meet agreed thresholds. We recommend familiarize with factors constitute authorship, senior scholars openly matter clarity parties enhance positive outcomes. At heart concern scientific Of course, reading draft offering comments, resulting comment implemented investigators. An doer—conducting forms output. Nevertheless, while doing necessary condition it sufficient condition. If individual could substituted final output remains same, included. For example, if survey handed enumerator then collects 100 responses, included because shaped They design investigator been replaced any same produced. Thus, shaper. Criterion one Vancouver rules above also states ‘substantial contribution’ required. Such vague statement leaves principles open interpretation. contend authors, small contribution, long shaping. Finally, regard items three four rules, view clerical matters. denied seen last version manuscript, or cannot reached account aspects While discussion is, illuminating, recent suggested move away focus contributors. Brand et al. (2015) introduce Project, establishes contributor role taxonomy. 14-term classification includes every aspect process, conceptualization writing, well additional contributions, such funding acquisition project administration. Project recommends journals adopt listed according input. neatly solves issue assigning work, assigned secondary importance. This approach clearly demonstrates ‘shapers doers’. Even without declaration implicit adoption avenues more better understanding bestowed upon Early Career Researchers (ECRs) particularly. Importantly, here stress key first step beyond rigid Rules instructive guideline determine given its comprehensive inclusive criteria. Moreover, rightfully enable receive systematic instance, instructed engage collection gain recognition effort. circumstances, certainly reaching bar ‘doers’—and coding—they ‘shapers’. Hence, will feasible case, attribution reasonable. allow ECRs accumulate concrete evidence practical experience envision complete switch ‘authors’ ‘contributors’, per taxonomy, might create disputes regarding reluctance identify goal simplify allocation actual procedure straightforward. initiate disagreements whether specific role. though clear-cut easily upon, involve negotiation discussion. impede alleviate allocation. Therefore, middle-ground beneficial overcome obstacles establishing co-authorship. Our doers’ eases allows co-authors properly acknowledge fashion reduces likelihood conflict. When emerge, most advice concerning disagreement arises awareness (as just discussed) arise place (Cooke al., 2021). arise, inclusion impartial third seems primary option conflict resolution (see Faulkes (2018) Strange (2008) further discussion). outputs number ways—from original idea, analysis, searches more. usually services regularly honourable acknowledgements' section piece. note hired RA show experience. But, deserve? helped shape fair recompense contribution? Should authors' list? Jamali (2020) surveyed 1,600 found ‘a minority (around 150)’ think co-authored lack appropriate substantial portion respondents (about half) pledge ‘clear rules’ system level seniority’ (Jamali 2020, p. 150). Clearly, there demand transparency set acknowledged adopted help Consider following scenario. search write review social science article. Prior initiation task, mentioned researcher, but, effort, pecuniary compensation. Upon completion above-mentioned tasks, researcher recognizes important references article written very thorough engaging later used (in edited version) publication. addition completing provided insights existing valuable shaping sections Is merit co-authorship? argue, yes. There generally institutions graduate school courses co-authors. Junior aware need considered specifics unclear. A almost 6000 different fields reports ‘drafting paper, interpreting results, analysing data’ top types deserve (Guglielmi, 2018). Yet, demonstrated differences across disciplines: showed ‘social scientists tend assign less value proposing ideas’ particular source ambiguity stems exactly ‘original contribution’. Oftentimes threshold vague, clear established guidelines impedes offered negotiated. consensus major impediment scholars, RAs, navigate under conditions unpredictable nature collaborations prevent discussing possibilities at various stages process. our scenario above, excellent did, rule oblige so. Some universities credit, unenforceable. white paper Taylor & Francis (2017, 4) shows only 18% humanities sciences reported received training guidance determining authorship. Furthermore, power asymmetry embedded researcher-RA relationship suggests abstain attempting negotiate reality many unaware ‘the game’ inexperienced identifying claim asymmetries even acute located Global South employer North (Bisoka, 2020). contexts, international contracts opportunity advancement. fear losing opportunities controversial discussions over conflicts jeopardize RAs' prospects. Additionally, North–South interactions extractive. engagement payment tasks consideration skills development areas studies. With clarity, around globe likely appointed task broaching idea had mooted? possible increase allotment effort previously unforeseen ways, introducing new ideas, information, manuscript driving forward. way, potentially impact must incentives principal deny field political least (from hail), solo-authored highly valued ones. publications send straightforward signal author's pieces (Gërxhani evaluators hiring committees, face complication co-author making assessments. co-authored, fewer better. Although makes difference (UK) REF submissions, preference disciplines, Physics, average nine, Medicine seven sciences, (Parish then, out Parish (2018), publish collaborative journal articles. Under keep lists low, higher make. summary, ways; however, mentions acknowledgments letting down aspiring academics, failing pay critical – authored publications. status quo arisen multiple reasons, about structures topic, incentives/pressures investigators low. argued doer presented seeks ensure deserve, denying privileges strong scholars' lives appointments, promotions, tenure self-actualisation. It now widely appreciated gaining permanent position harder ever mind, services, editors. As European early-career scientists, predominantly stem experiences environment UK Italy. recognize date understate disparities, particularly between South. full concerns scope current hope works thoroughly issue. risk inadequate remuneration exchange Pinpointing becomes exploitation ‘either–or’ decision. Authors alphabetical order; equal applied conceptualisation writing (both draft, editing). thank Nicole Beardsworth, Eloïse Bertrand Briony Jones helpful comments. like Sophie Robinson anonymous reviewer comments greatly improved Phillip Nelson Marina G. Petrova