What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science

TLDR

Authorship has traditionally been limited to small groups, but large collaborations now involve hundreds or thousands of individuals, making it hard to discern individual contributions and affecting hiring and promotion decisions. This article uses interview data from the High Energy Physics community to examine challenges posed by large collaborative research to the traditional authorship model. The authors discuss physicists’ concerns and propose applying mechanism‑design theory to develop credit attribution systems that ensure proper recognition and motivate optimal effort.

Abstract

Abstract In this article, I draw on interview data gathered in the High Energy Physics (HEP) community to address recent problems stemming from collaborative research activity that stretches the boundaries of the traditional scientific authorship model. While authorship historically has been attributed to individuals and small groups, thereby making it relatively easy to tell who made major contributions to the work, recent collaborations have involved hundreds or thousands of individuals. Printing all of these names in the author list on articles can mean difficulties in discerning the nature or extent of individual contributions, which has significant implications for hiring and promotion procedures. This also can make collaborative research less attractive to scientists at the outset of a project. I discuss the issues that physicists are considering as they grapple with what it means to be “an author,” in addition to suggesting that future work in this area draw on the emerging economics literature on “mechanism design” in considering how credit can be attributed in ways that both ensure proper attribution and induce scientists to put forth their best effort.