[Esip-citationguidelines] Contribution vs Credit vs Authorship for software – Daniel S. Katz's blog

[Parsons, Mark]

Good stuff. You should post a comment on Dan’s blog.

cheers,

-m.

On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:41, Matthew Mayernik <mayernik at ucar.edu<mailto:mayernik at ucar.edu>> wrote:

And a paper, https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v11i1.357.  One of the things we note, however, in our paper is that movie credits are a highly regulated form of credit. Most of the credit designations in movies are mediated by unions, guilds, etc. For example, screenwriting credits for hollywood movies have to be reviewed and approved by the Screenwriters Guild. To move in that direction within science would require the creation of analogous forms of institutionalized mediation.

Another relevant point here is that this kind of approach was discussed at the American meteorological society meeting a few weeks ago and there was significant pushback, particularly by senior scientists. In specific, the concern cited most strongly was that it could make it harder for students, e.g. if a PI has an idea for a study that is then carried out and written up by a student, would the student be penalized when trying to get a job for not being the originator of the idea? In other words, there can be a double edge sword for transparency around work roles. Exposing that specific people contributed to tasks that are not conventionally considered to be important could a) raise the status of those tasks, or b) reduce the importance of the people doing those tasks. I would not be willing to make a prediction about which way the scale would tilt between those two.

My point is that anything authorship-related is complicated, and hard to influence in a straight-forward way.

Matt

Matt

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>     Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<x-msg://18/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 6:12 PM Sophie Hou via Esip-citationguidelines <esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:
Hi Mark,

I agree; especially since Matt and I had an IDCC15 poster demonstrating exactly that: :-)

http://www.dcc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/IDCC15/175_Creatingaclimatemodel.pdf

Best,
Sophie


On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 6:03 PM Parsons, Mark via Esip-citationguidelines <esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:
Thoughts on credit from our friend Dan Katz.
https://danielskatzblog.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/contribution-vs-credit-vs-authorship-for-software/

I like how he works to separate the different levels of credit and more importantly:

"In the longer term, we need to stop using the term author as the means of recognizing all significant contributions, and possibly go to a movie-like system where we name contributors and explain their contributions, and where author would be one of many types of contribution.”

Something for us to consider.

cheers,

-m.

_______________________________________________
Esip-citationguidelines mailing list
Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org>
https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-citationguidelines
_______________________________________________
Esip-citationguidelines mailing list
Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:Esip-citationguidelines at lists.esipfed.org>
https://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-citationguidelines

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-citationguidelines/attachments/20190124/1fb1c5c5/attachment.html>