Giving Proper CRediT: The Modern Minefield of Scientific Publishing, Career Advancement, and Interdisciplinary Science

One does not need to wander far in academic circles before encountering heated discussions about scientific publishing. Opinions are often strongly held, in no small part because publishing is deeply embedded in how we work, and it is not straightforward for critics to choose to “opt out”. In recent years, we have seen significant changes, from cOAlition S catalyzing a rapid transformation to open access, to a range of experiments with different forms of peer review and the ever-increasing adoption of ChemRxiv. Nevertheless, debate remains about whether the publishing system is serving the scientific community.

In this Editorial, we take a different starting point. We try to imagine an ideal paradigm for scientific publishing, very aware that this may mean different things for different people, and present some of our ideas. When contemplating this issue, we quickly realized we needed a framework to measure what “success” in publishing looks like. To find this measure, we asked the question: why should we publish? From here we derive two clear objectives:

• 1.Encourage and support great scientific progress. Part of the answer is that we publish in order to make our results available to others. This is necessary to stimulate further development and allow the field to consolidate and deepen fundamental understanding. The problems at the forefront of science are incredibly challenging, and we need the “wisdom of crowds” to make optimal progress.
• 2.Allow researchers to build and have fulfilling careers. Another part of the answer is that we publish to create a formal record of the contributions of individuals and groups to the advancement of knowledge. This answer has both an ideological element and a practical element. There is an ideological aspect to ascribing scientific advancement to a series of personal achievements and a practical consequence that individuals are then evaluated on the basis of these reported achievements. This formal record can encompass much more than published articles, but in many areas of chemistry there is a significant focus on publications.

It is clear that much of the impetus behind open science comes from a desire to address the first point by providing greater access to the products of scientific research. In this Editorial, we probe a little more deeply into the second point. Of course, we can argue about whether it is ideologically correct to attribute scientific discoveries to individuals, given the complex and interwoven nature of knowledge and the process of discovery,¹ but even if we set that aside there are important consequences of the way in which the evaluation of individuals and groups is conducted on the basis of their publications.

First, consider this issue from the point of view of the author. We cannot control the funding agencies, the hiring committees, and the tenure reviewers, but we can control the papers we write. When we are faced with pressure from a lack of job security, short-term contracts, limited research funds, etc., it is hard (or perhaps even foolish) not to respond by tailoring our publishing plans to “maximize” impact from the point of view of this evaluation process. This could be as simple as writing two shorter articles instead of one longer one—something that might be preferred by readers but creates an extra burden on referees. It could also come from efforts to find the most exciting “story” for a set of results to increase chances of publication in a desired journal. Again, this storytelling work might improve a paper, making the consequences of the work more transparent, but it can also lead to overhyping and/or overselling of results. There are many ways in which this tailoring can occur, and while the approach is not necessarily unethical and the consequences are not necessarily serious, it nonetheless distorts the scientific record as papers are not written with the sole objective of providing the clearest presentation of the results (see objective 1 above). Even if this is not done for our own careers, there is always the question of how to best serve our students and postdocs who are facing uncertain futures.

This effect is not unique to scientific publishing. Generally, it is known as Goodhart’s law, which is often summarized as “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.^2,3 Framed this way, we can see that part of the problem stems from the incessant counting of papers. Anecdotally, we have heard the advice to prospective job applicants for writing their job applications and to junior faculty preparing promotion dossiers: “not everyone can read, but they can all count”. We see numbers of papers counted in publication lists, numbers of first or last authorships, number of corresponding authorships, numbers of citations of papers in h-indices (and other similar metrics), numbers of papers citing papers in journal impact factors, and so the mess continues! All of this counting exerts pressure on authors, peer reviewers, grant reviewers, and the publication system and has nothing to do with encouraging great science.

So, does all the counting allow individuals or groups to be fairly evaluated? Anyone who has had to evaluate a diverse field of applicants can see the temptation in counting. A researcher does not have to be far from one’s own research before it is challenging to assess the novelty and significance of the work. Publication lists can vary hugely depending on the research field and the track record of candidates—how should they be compared? There is the temptation to think there must be some quantitative measure that can be applied to this qualitative task. At the same time, we have a lingering concern that the simple counting of papers (and citations and impact factors) is a poor measure. No number can give us clarity in comparing apples with oranges, so we need to find alternative ways to make qualified evaluations.

One alternative is a shift toward a narrative style, where the writer provides the context and comments on the impact of the work, rather than simply listing publicly available data as is done in a traditional publication list. This allows us to move away from the tyranny of counting and step toward a more nuanced record of scientific discovery, emphasizing different candidate’s contributions in the context of the work. Similarly, it allows us to break away from the often unfair and often arbitrary distinction between different author positions—our emphasis on first and last author positions is a poor approximation to the many and diverse contributions in modern interdisciplinary science.

It is in this context that ACS Physical Chemistry Au is proud to be one of the 18 ACS journals participating in the CRediT pilot (https://axial.acs.org/2022/06/14/18-acs-journals-to-pilot-contributor-roles-taxonomy/). CRediT is a taxonomy of particular roles that authors may have and provides an official record of these contributions published with the paper. Fourteen roles can be assigned to authors, including Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, and more, the sum total of which reflects the diversity and complexity of roles in modern interdisciplinary science. For a full list of the roles and a description of each one, see https://credit.niso.org. In ACS Physical Chemistry Au, and the other ACS Au community journals, authors will also be asked to select the “degree of contribution”, which identifies whether each author had an Equal, Lead, or Supporting role for each contribution. The final article will present all CRediT information under the “Author Contributions” heading.

By documenting an official record of contributions from each author, agreed to by coauthors, individuals have evidence of their contribution to a piece of work to support a narrative CV and to broaden the story beyond counting. During the pilot, which will run through September 2022, the corresponding author will have an opportunity to provide CRediT information when submitting their manuscript in ACS Paragon Plus (both at the initial and revised submissions). We appreciate that this adds an extra step to your submission, but we firmly believe that this provides a nontrivial benefit to all authors to have their contributions properly documented in the scientific record. If you provide CRediT information with your manuscript during the pilot, we are also very interested in your feedback. Please email your comments to support@services.acs.org.

Modern interdisciplinary science can lead to whole “football teams” of authors, and we hope CRediT will allow us to celebrate all the different contributions that make research possible. We look forward to moving beyond the cryptic puzzle of guessing contributions from author order and affiliations to a fair and transparent recognition system. We hope researchers can use this record to document their achievements and build the careers they aspire to. We know this will certainly not quiet all the heated discussions about scientific publishing, but we firmly believe that every step that focuses us more intently toward great scientific progress can only be a good thing.

Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.