Bibliography

The canonical Nature comment proposing CRediT. Introduces the fourteen-role taxonomy developed at the 2012 Harvard / Wellcome workshop and frames the public case for moving from authorship to contributorship.

The full conceptual exposition of the taxonomy by the original Project CRediT working group. The reference text for the fourteen roles in their standard order.

The pre-CRediT exposition of the contributorship model, written immediately ahead of the Harvard workshop. The intellectual prelude to the 2014 Nature paper.

Practitioner-facing argument for contributorship-over-authorship with concrete drafting guidance. The most-cited operational primer for authors completing CRediT statements.

Empirical cross-disciplinary study of author and contribution disclosure practices. The first paper to quantify the byline / contribution mismatch that motivated publisher rollouts.

Large-scale scientometric analysis of CRediT statements across the PLOS corpus. The foundational empirical study of contributorship patterns by role, seniority, and gender.

Editorial review of the first five years of CRediT adoption, including early data on visibility outcomes for under-credited contributor groups.

Multi-author manifesto urging institutions and publishers to standardise on CRediT. Supplies the practical adoption roadmap echoed in later policy documents.

Joint editorial from major journal editors arguing for ORCID + CRediT integration as a baseline for research integrity. Underpinned the editorial-policy alignment that followed at the major publishers.

Survey study of researcher attitudes to authorship distribution in collaborative teams. Reinforces the case for prospective, structured contributorship statements as a dispute-prevention mechanism.

Scientometric evidence that byline position is no longer a reliable proxy for contribution. Motivates the structural shift CRediT codifies.

Critical analysis of the relationship between the ICMJE authorship criteria and the CRediT contributorship model, with recommendations for reconciliation in medical-journal policy.

Synthesis of adoption barriers and proposed extensions, including the recognition gap for acknowledged contributors and the open question of AI-disclosure within the taxonomy.

Proposal for inline contributor-initial reporting at the methods-section level. Sits alongside CRediT as a complementary attribution mechanism in laboratory science.

The launch paper for ORCID. The persistent-identifier foundation that makes machine-readable CRediT statements possible across systems.

The POSI principles for governance and sustainability of shared open infrastructure. Adopted (in full or in adaptation) by Crossref, DataCite, ORCID, and ROR.

Early statement of the CASRAI–ORCID joint architecture, setting out the federation rationale that underpins the present stewardship model.

Crossref technical paper on the deposit-metadata services that publishers use to lodge CRediT statements alongside DOIs.

The canonical statement of the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable principles. The framework against which research-data outputs are assessed.

Operationalisation of the FAIR principles for the European Open Science Cloud. Key reference for research-information offices building FAIR-aligned services.

The Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles. Establishes that data should be treated as a first-class research output, citable on the same terms as articles.

Publisher-facing implementation roadmap for data citation. Companion to the data-citation principles, important for cross-publisher harmonisation.

The declaration against use of journal-based metrics for evaluating individual research contributions. The conceptual anchor for responsible-assessment work across the federation.

RoRI report on funder-level reform of research assessment. Key reference for the assessment-policy domain of the dictionary.

The CoARA agreement, signed by more than five hundred organisations. The European policy expression of the DORA programme, with explicit commitments on recognising diverse contributions.

The Leiden Manifesto: ten principles for the responsible use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation. Cited alongside DORA in nearly all responsible-assessment policy work.

Empirical study of authorship-dispute prevalence and resolution patterns. Key empirical reference for the integrity case for CRediT.

The current ICMJE four-criterion definition of authorship, with the contributorship complement. The authority document for medical-journal editorial policy worldwide.

COPE’s formal discussion document framing authorship and contributorship for editors. Cited in journal-level authorship policies across the COPE membership.

The standard systematic review of authorship research up to 2011. Establishes the empirical baseline against which post-CRediT reforms can be measured.

The formal ANSI/NISO standard for CRediT. The authority reference for any institutional, publisher, or vendor implementation of the taxonomy.

The JATS4R recommendation for encoding CRediT inside JATS XML. Essential reference for publishers implementing CRediT at the manuscript-XML layer.

Crossref’s schema-5.5 announcement formalising CRediT support in the deposit metadata. The technical hand-off point between publisher XML and the open-citation graph.

Joint statement on the integrity case for richer metadata, including contributor roles. Useful for institutions building the policy case for adoption.

The CERIF data model maintained by euroCRIS. The European CRIS-system standard that CASRAI dictionary terms map into.

The agenda-setting Nature feature on generative AI in the research workflow. Frames the disclosure questions the contributorship community has had to address.

Nature’s editorial statement that LLMs cannot be listed as authors and must be disclosed in methods. The publisher-policy template adopted in modified form by most major publishers.

Science editor-in-chief’s statement closing the AAAS journals to LLM authorship. Companion to the Nature editorial; together they set the field-wide baseline.

COPE’s authoritative position that AI tools do not satisfy authorship criteria, with disclosure requirements. Cited in journal policies across the COPE membership.

WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative AI in scholarly manuscripts. Standard reference for medical-journal editorial policy on AI disclosure.

Ethics analysis of AI-disclosure requirements with a proposed disclosure framework. Cited in subsequent extension proposals for CRediT and the ICMJE recommendations.

The FORCE11 software-citation principles. The canonical reference for treating research software as a citable output on a par with articles and data.

Practical implementation guide for software citation, building on the FORCE11 principles. Reference document for repositories implementing software-citation workflows.

Adaptation of the FAIR principles to research software. Important reference for repositories, funders, and institutions assessing software outputs.

Reflective piece on JATS XML as the cross-publisher standard. Helpful context for understanding where CRediT sits in the production pipeline.

History of the JATS standard from its NLM origins through to NISO stewardship. The reference for understanding the XML pipeline that carries CRediT.

Crossref overview paper from the organisation’s leadership. Reference for the metadata ecosystem that distributes CRediT across the citation graph.

Practitioner case study of a CRediT-in-production workflow at a society publisher. Useful operational counterpart to the more theoretical adoption literature.

Five-year review of CRediT adoption under CASRAI stewardship. Reference for the pre-handover institutional position.

Documented integrity-office case work showing how structured contributorship statements shorten and de-personalise authorship disputes. Reference case for institutional adopters.

The 2023 joint stewardship statement formalising the post-CASRAI distribution of responsibility for CRediT, the dictionary, and adjacent assets.