PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 7, 2025Accountability in Research2 citationsOpen Access

Using the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) as a tool in resolving authorship disputes at the NIH

View Full Paper
MHMohammad Hosseini

Key Points

  • Mediation policies helped resolve authorship disputes, ensuring clearer credit attribution.
  • The NIH Intramural Research Program employs structured approaches to address authorship conflicts.
  • Using common vocabulary in authorship disputes promotes better understanding among parties involved.
  • Robust institutional mechanisms may lead to healthier research environments and improve productivity.

Abstract

The Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) was released in 2014 with the aim of improving the attribution of credit and responsibilities in scholarly publications. Besides encouraging researchers to use CRediT for specification of contributions in publications, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Intramural Research Program (IRP) has been using CRediT as a tool to investigate and resolve authorship disputes pre- and post-publication. In this article, we share the policies and procedures used at the NIH IRP for resolving authorship disputes, with the hope that other administrators and institutions might find value in our approach and provide feedback where necessary. The NIH IRP employs CRediT to offer a more objective and structured approach to understanding how a supervisor, complainant, or other parties involved in a dispute view the overall contributions in a project. This approach provides both the research group and the mediator or investigator with a common vocabulary to describe contributions and minimizes the likelihood of misunderstanding. Developing robust and transparent institutional mechanisms to address and resolve disputes, including guidance on how to address conflicts on authorship and authorship order, might contribute to a more productive and healthier research environment.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mohammad Hosseini (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/694020ee2d562116f28faff1https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2596063
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Electronic Publishing2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science2019 · 83 citations
  3. 3An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication2022 · 52 citations
  4. 4Peer Review in Scholarly Publication2024 · 2 citations
  5. 5Developing the next-generation cancer research workforce in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program2024 · 2 citations