Authorship: credit vs. responsibility

Many argue that authorship should be an all-inclusive mechanism to assign credit, e.g. https://t.co/nOs69ZfD4phttps://t.co/Lrr4Uh20Vn

I don't disagree with this. As scientific projects grow, larger and larger teams with varied expertise are necessary to do the work.
2/n

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020

But: authorship is *not* just for assigning credit (and all the career benefits it brings).

It's also about indicating responsibility.
4/n pic.twitter.com/490VNQHbHz

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020

I've certainly struggled with authorship on projects where I had done enough to earn credit, but not enough to take responsibility (due to lack of expertise, time investment, or simply insufficient interest to stand behind the full project and its implications).

6/n

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020

However, implicit responsibility assignment can break down even in small, traditional teams.

In cases of scientific fraud, co-authors are 'dragged in'; they put their name on a paper to earn credit, and later deal with consequences of assumed responsibility.

8/n

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020

What to do?
I'm a big fan of detailed contribution tables e.g. https://t.co/5tCtt9ePuO (see https://t.co/R5hQiSYvKt for more).

Perhaps we need another dimension for levels of responsibility, to complement https://t.co/IDBoVDqZNH
10/n pic.twitter.com/nulPtPT3D2

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020

Until then, long author lists should be accompanied not just by extensive credit breakdown, but also responsibility breakdown. These will correlate, but not overlap – and they will help when honest bugs, strange omissions or suspected fraud come to light.
12/n

— Anne Urai (@AnneEUrai) November 15, 2020