Clarification around Contribuitor Roles (specification of each role)

Content Registration
, ,
1

Hello everyone,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing because I need clarification on contributor roles, as I couldn’t find satisfactory answers in the existing documentation.

I would like to know the specific definitions for each of the following “contributor” roles. Is there a specific page or guideline that details these functions?:

  • first-author

  • additional-author

  • editor

  • chair

  • reviewer

  • reviewer-assistant

  • stats-reviewer

  • reviewer-external

  • reader

  • translator

For example, when crediting the peer reviewers who conducted the peer review and who are also editors of the journal, which role should I use?

Furthermore, in a scientific article with a group of authors who all made an equivalent contribution, should all of them be designated as “first-author”? Or, after listing the “first-author,” should everyone else be listed as “additional-author” regardless of their collaboration? How should I distinguish between them?

Also, if a group of authors each performed a specific function, how do I distribute the “first-author” and “additional-author” roles?

Finally, in the case of an author group that includes their supervising professor, would the professor be considered “first-author,” “additional-author,” or a different role entirely?

How can I specifically distinguish these functions for these and other cases?

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Ayla

2

Hi Ayla,

Thanks for your questions.

We don’t have strict definitions for contributor roles (or, indeed, many classifications in our schema) because different publishers and organizations use those terms slightly differently. So, we leave the determination up to each content registrant.

For example, when crediting the peer reviewers who conducted the peer review and who are also editors of the journal, which role should I use?

The contributor roles are respective to the specific content item that you’re registering. So, if you’re registering a peer review, then you would identify that contributor as a reviewer. If you’re registering a journal issue, then you’d identify the contributor as an editor. If that same person also authored an article, when you register the article, you’d identify them as an author.

These are almost exclusively used for peer reviews:

  • reviewer
  • reviewer-assistant
  • stats-reviewer
  • reviewer-external
  • reader

And

  • chair

is almost exclusively used for conference proceedings and conference papers.

Furthermore, in a scientific article with a group of authors who all made an equivalent contribution, should all of them be designated as “first-author”? Or, after listing the “first-author,” should everyone else be listed as “additional-author” regardless of their collaboration? How should I distinguish between them?

This is also a matter of editorial judgement. If you don’t distinguish between the various authors’ contributions, you can either tag all authors as “first” or all as “additional”.

Also, if a group of authors each performed a specific function, how do I distribute the “first-author” and “additional-author” roles?

That depends on whether or not there’s a hierarchy where one or more authors are considered primary. If there’s no hierarchical distinction, regardless of their functions, then the whole concept of distinguishing between ‘first’ and ‘additional’ doesn’t really apply. So, in that case, you can call all authors ‘first’ or all ‘additional’.

How can I specifically distinguish these functions for these and other cases?

If you have specific use-cases in mind, please let us know, and we’ll do our best to advise.

Our next schema version will be incorporating the CRediT taxonomy, which offers a richer and more nuanced array of contributor role options. So, that might suit your content a bit better once it’s available.

-Shayn

4 Likes
3

Hey Shayn!

Thank you very much for the explanations, they were a great help.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,

1 Like