Implementation, barriers, and improvement strategies for CRediT: A scoping review.

IF 4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-07-14 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2528953

Tove Godskesen, Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson

{"title":"Implementation, barriers, and improvement strategies for CRediT: A scoping review.","authors":"Tove Godskesen, Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2528953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This scoping review aims to investigate the reasons for adopting the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in scholarly publishing, identify barriers to its implementation or concerns about its use, and propose improvements to enhance its effectiveness in attributing individual contributions to research articles.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases, including ProQuest, LISA, LISTA, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection.Results: From an initial pool of 732 papers, 45 were selected for inclusion in the review. The findings indicate that, while the adoption of CRediT promotes transparency and recognition of contributions beyond traditional authorship, several challenges remain. Key barriers include limited applicability across different research types, potential ethical concerns, and conflicts among contributors. Factors contributing to slow adoption include low awareness, inconsistent implementation, and cultural resistance within the research community. Additionally, ambiguous role definitions complicate attribution and fairness.Conclusions: This review highlights CRediT's potential to enhance transparency and equitable recognition of diverse contributions in scholarly publishing. However, it underscores the need to address internal challenges and promote broader acceptance within the research community. Recommendations include establishing clearer role hierarchies, standardizing adoption policies, and integrating CRediT into metadata for improved contribution tracking.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2528953","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This scoping review aims to investigate the reasons for adopting the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) in scholarly publishing, identify barriers to its implementation or concerns about its use, and propose improvements to enhance its effectiveness in attributing individual contributions to research articles.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases, including ProQuest, LISA, LISTA, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection.

Results: From an initial pool of 732 papers, 45 were selected for inclusion in the review. The findings indicate that, while the adoption of CRediT promotes transparency and recognition of contributions beyond traditional authorship, several challenges remain. Key barriers include limited applicability across different research types, potential ethical concerns, and conflicts among contributors. Factors contributing to slow adoption include low awareness, inconsistent implementation, and cultural resistance within the research community. Additionally, ambiguous role definitions complicate attribution and fairness.

Conclusions: This review highlights CRediT's potential to enhance transparency and equitable recognition of diverse contributions in scholarly publishing. However, it underscores the need to address internal challenges and promote broader acceptance within the research community. Recommendations include establishing clearer role hierarchies, standardizing adoption policies, and integrating CRediT into metadata for improved contribution tracking.

查看原文本刊更多论文

信用的实施、障碍和改进策略：范围审查。

目的：本范围综述旨在调查在学术出版中采用贡献者角色分类法（CRediT）的原因，确定其实施的障碍或对其使用的担忧，并提出改进建议，以提高其在将个人贡献归因于研究文章方面的有效性。方法：按照PRISMA指南，在ProQuest、LISA、LISTA、EBSCO、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science Core Collection等多个数据库中进行综合文献检索。结果：从最初的732篇论文中，45篇被纳入综述。研究结果表明，尽管采用信用制度促进了传统作者身份之外的贡献的透明度和认可，但仍存在一些挑战。主要障碍包括不同研究类型的有限适用性、潜在的伦理问题和贡献者之间的冲突。导致缓慢采用的因素包括低意识、不一致的实施和研究界的文化阻力。此外，模棱两可的角色定义使归因和公平复杂化。结论：本综述强调了信用机制在提高学术出版中不同贡献的透明度和公平承认方面的潜力。然而，它强调了解决内部挑战和促进研究界更广泛接受的必要性。建议包括建立更清晰的角色层次结构，标准化采用策略，以及将CRediT集成到元数据中以改进贡献跟踪。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.