Not all 14 CRediT roles apply to a review article. When a manuscript synthesises existing literature rather than collecting primary data, roles built around experiments, materials and datasets — Investigation, Resources, Data Curation — rarely fit, while Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Visualization and both Writing roles almost always do. An author contribution statement example review article authors can adapt should map contributions to the roles the review actually required, not force every author into a role designed for empirical research.
The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is a fourteen-role classification system used to describe, in a standardised author contribution statement, exactly what each named author did on a published work. CASRAI originated CRediT in 2014 as a response to opaque, order-of-authorship-only bylines; the taxonomy is now stewarded by NISO as ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, with the current definitions maintained at credit.niso.org.
- Which CRediT roles actually apply to a review article?
- Which roles rarely apply when there’s no primary data collection?
- Does it differ between narrative and systematic reviews?
- How do you write the statement itself?
- Common questions about author contribution statements
- What this means for review authors and editors
Which CRediT roles actually apply to a review article?
Seven to nine of the fourteen CRediT roles map cleanly onto review-article work. Conceptualization covers who framed the review question and scope — always relevant, since every review starts from a defined aim. Methodology covers the design of the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria and, for systematic reviews, the registered protocol.
Formal Analysis applies wherever authors synthesise findings — statistically in a meta-analysis, thematically in a narrative review. Visualization covers PRISMA flow diagrams, forest plots and summary tables, which most reviews include. Writing – Original Draft and Writing – Review & Editing apply to every author who meets ICMJE’s drafting-or-revising criterion. Supervision, Project Administration and Funding Acquisition apply exactly as they would on any funded, multi-author output.
Which roles rarely apply when there’s no primary data collection?
Resources and Data Curation were written for empirical studies: provision of reagents, patients, instrumentation, or management of a generated dataset. A review that only reads and synthesises published sources produces no such materials, so these roles should usually be omitted rather than stretched.
Software only applies if authors built bespoke code — for example a custom R script for a meta-analysis — not for using standard reference-management tools. Validation, defined by NISO as verifying reproducibility of results or experiments, has no primary experiment to verify in most narrative reviews, though it can legitimately apply to a systematic review’s dual-reviewer screening check.
Investigation is the most commonly misapplied role in review contribution statements. NISO’s definition ties it to “performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection” — some editors accept that a systematic literature search and screening process counts as evidence collection, while others reserve Investigation strictly for primary data gathering. Because guidance is inconsistent across publishers, review teams should state explicitly what “Investigation” covers in their statement rather than assume a shared reading.
| CRediT role | Typical fit for a review article | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptualization | Applies | Framing the review question and aims |
| Methodology | Applies | Search strategy, protocol, screening criteria |
| Investigation | Contested | Literature search sometimes counted, sometimes not |
| Formal Analysis | Applies | Statistical or thematic synthesis |
| Data Curation | Rarely applies | No generated dataset in most reviews |
| Resources | Rarely applies | No materials, patients or instrumentation |
| Software | Rarely applies | Only if bespoke analysis code was built |
| Validation | Rarely applies | Occasional fit for dual-reviewer screening checks |
| Visualization | Applies | PRISMA diagrams, forest plots, summary tables |
| Writing – Original Draft | Applies | Always, for drafting authors |
| Writing – Review & Editing | Applies | Always, for revising authors |
| Supervision | Applies | Senior-author oversight |
| Project Administration | Applies | Coordinating multi-reviewer teams |
| Funding Acquisition | Applies | If the review was funded |
Does it differ between narrative and systematic reviews?
Yes. A systematic review generates far more CRediT-relevant activity than a narrative review because it follows a documented protocol. Formal database searching, dual-reviewer screening, a PRISMA flow diagram and, often, a meta-analysis all create genuine Methodology, Formal Analysis and Visualization contributions.
A narrative review, by contrast, typically compresses most of the work into Conceptualization and the two Writing roles, since there is no registered protocol or formal extraction process to document separately. Authors of narrative reviews should resist copying a systematic-review template wholesale — an author contribution statement that lists Investigation, Validation and Data Curation for a narrative review with no protocol will look inflated to an editor who knows the difference.
How do you write the statement itself?
Springer Nature’s author instructions explicitly accommodate reviews: where “discrete statements are less applicable,” the statement should still identify who had the idea for the article and who performed the literature search, even without a full role-by-role breakdown. JMIR’s author guidance is more direct: “Some roles won’t apply – each research output is different; if specific CRediT roles are not relevant to a particular output, they do not need to be included.”
A practical three-author example for a systematic review:
- Conceptualization: A.B. (lead), C.D. (equal)
- Methodology: A.B., C.D.
- Formal Analysis: E.F.
- Visualization: E.F. (lead), A.B. (supporting)
- Writing – Original Draft: A.B. (lead), C.D. (supporting)
- Writing – Review & Editing: A.B., C.D., E.F.
- Supervision: A.B.
Note what is absent: no Data Curation, Resources, Software or Validation, because none occurred. Under ICMJE’s authorship criteria, every named author must still meet all four conditions — substantial contribution, drafting or revising, final approval, and accountability — regardless of which CRediT roles they are assigned.
Common questions about author contribution statements
What is a contribution statement example?
A contribution statement lists each author’s initials against the specific CRediT roles they performed, such as “A.B.: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft; C.D.: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing.” It replaces vague author-order assumptions with an explicit, auditable record.
What is the author contribution statement in Springer?
Springer Nature requires a statement of responsibility in every manuscript, including review-type articles, specifying each author’s contribution. For reviews where a full role-by-role breakdown does not fit, Springer still expects the statement to name who conceived the article and who conducted the literature search.
How to write an author contribution statement?
List every author’s initials, then attach the CRediT roles that genuinely apply to their work on that specific manuscript, omitting roles that do not apply rather than padding the list. Corresponding authors are responsible for confirming the statement with every co-author before submission.
What should substantial contributions include to be credited as an author?
Per ICMJE, substantial contribution means conception or design, or acquisition/analysis/interpretation of data, combined with drafting or critically revising the work, final approval, and accountability for its accuracy. Meeting only one criterion, such as literature searching alone, does not by itself satisfy authorship requirements.
What this means for review authors and editors
Review teams that copy a data-heavy CRediT template wholesale risk two failure modes: omitting genuine synthesis work under vague “Writing” credit, or inflating the statement with roles like Investigation and Data Curation that a careful editor will question. The more defensible approach is to start from the fourteen roles, keep the seven or eight that genuinely occurred, and state plainly — as JMIR’s guidance recommends — that the rest were not applicable to this output.
As more publishers formalise CRediT for review-type manuscripts under ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, expect journal instructions to increasingly distinguish narrative from systematic reviews in their contribution-statement guidance, closing the ambiguity that currently surrounds roles like Investigation. Until then, the safest practice for review authors is explicit scoping: name what each role means in this specific manuscript, rather than relying on definitions written for laboratory-based research.