Beyond authorship
Analyzing disciplinary differences of contribution statements using the CRediT taxonomy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21442575 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Elvira González‐Salmón (0000-0003-3826-766X), Elvira González-Salmón (Universidad de Granada), Victoria Di Césare (0000-0001-7098-1914, Universidad de Granada, corresponding author), Aoxia Xiao (0000-0003-2173-0996, Wuhan University), Nicolás Robinson‐García (0000-0002-0585-7359), Nicolás Robinson-García (Universidad de Granada) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 131 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1415-1436 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Scientometrics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0138-9130 • E-ISSN: 1588-2861 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-026-05582-5 |
| OpenAlex | W7133346111 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 36 |
In this research article, we present the first cross-disciplinary descriptive analysis of the use of contribution statements. Our main objective is to obtain further insight on contributions by a variety of fields (Multidisciplinary, Health, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences) from the largest dataset used up to now. We examine more than 700,000 articles published between 2018 and 2023 in Elsevier and PLOS journals, in combination with bibliometric data extracted from the Scopus database. The descriptive analysis of the dataset focuses on the overall coverage of the merged data, the distribution of authorship and disciplines at paper level, and the interactions between contribution statements, author order, and disciplines. Our two main findings indicate that, on the one hand, looking at contributions and authorship order can enrich the way we understand science as a social endeavor. On the other hand, delving deeper into contributorship differences by field is key. We underscore the value of the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) in unveiling nuanced research dynamics and offering a more equitable framework for evaluation
Bibliometrics · Descriptive statistics · Discipline · Field (mathematics) · Scopus · Social network analysis · Taxonomy (biology) · Variety (cybernetics) · Academic Publishing and Open Access · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)
Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities
Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities
Team size matters
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Research funding in different SCI disciplines
Research coauthorship 1900–2020
The science of team science (SciTS)
Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production
Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science
| Highly cited | No |
|---|