Alex Holcombe

There's no right answer here in my opinion because I think authorship is a confused muddle, but given the current system, let's say I recognize an opportunity to make a research project happen by dint of me contributing a whole lot of labor, but I then don't have time to contribute anything else.

About intellectual contribution being a criterion, It's almost elitist by definition, but focusing on that probably confuses the debate.
So, to start afresh, I'd be interested to know why you think (if you do) that only people who make intellectual contributions should be on the by-line.

Nice to know you agree with this one! Always interested to hear peoples' thoughts.

No matter where you are in the world🌍🌏🌎, you're invited to join the livestream for Monday's keynote speeches starting at 14:10 (CEST).

🎤Dr. David Oliva Uribe (UNESCO)

🎤Prof Dr Johan Rooryck & Pierre Mounier (European Diamond Capacity Hub)

www.craft-oa.eu/craft-oa-con...

#CRAFT_OA2025

And there are many scholarly communities using it that didn't need liberation because they were never captured. Notably, ironically, those in low and middle-income countries.

PKP is behind Open Journal Systems, the most widely-used free open source journal management system, which can be used to liberate us from Elsevier and all the rest of the profiteers! #openaccess

An event card showing the details of the event that are given in the post. It also says 'An OABN webinar with the support of the ERC Executive Agency'.

EVENT: Join us at our next free webinar, 'Publishing Open Access Books: Insights from ERC-Funded Authors'

📆 Tuesday 30 September
⏰ 11am BST / 12pm CEST

Find out more & register: openaccessbooksnetwork.hcommons.org/2025/09/03/p...

#OAbooks @operaseu.bsky.social

Was great to get some answers to this, from ChatGPT (not kidding).
Australians are different; they never say "we're not here to fuck spiders, as it were" nor "he couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, as it were"

Seems that in some fields that is now semi-formally assumed to be the corresponding author. Of course, that's often the most senior author, who is most likely to be dead or retired, haha, by the time an investigation begins.

That's a good point. Going back to the original 1997 Rennie contributorship proposal, he and others were already saying that one/some authors should be declared "guarantor" and take the most responsibility. Do you have another idea?

Under a contributorship system, the people who wrote the paper would be listed as having written the paper, so authorship in that sense would continue. Contributorship is about not conflating authorship (writing) with other things involved. But I don't know if I understood your point right.

Authorship was invented for entities in which the only thing people really care about is who wrote it, like a book. A scientific paper is not about the words, but reports a project of work that can have many more people involved.

Right thanks, I just wanted to check that I hadn't missed something.

Is this a sarcastic comment, meaning that you don't think that people p-hack?

I don't get what you mean. I'm probably being thick here.

and including metadata in Acknowledgments, so that people like technicians in Acknowledgments sections can make it into scholarly databases.

I hadn't heard of "institution authorship", would love to read more about that!
Because contributorship isn't fully replacing authorship anytime soon, we are advocating for measures to improve tracking of who did what, including broader use of taxonomies like CRediT,

I favor contributorship, essentially as proposed by Rennie et al. in 1997
(some background here www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/... , www.nature.com/articles/d41...), which is just to have a list of the substantial contributors, indicating who did what.

I don't recall seeing the word "professional" anywhere, did you mean that literally?

The seventh edition of the APA Publication Manual: “Authorship encompasses … not only persons who do the writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study” (p. 24) which I like. www.apa.org/pubs/journal...

I'm confused by what you mean... I wasn't proposing that the author list be condensed. Instead, primarily oriented toward saying who did what, and including all significant contributors in the "who".

Melbourne 2025 - Australasian Cognitive Neuroscience Society

(Please note: This year, ASPP2025 will happen just before the annual conference of the Australasian Cognitive Neuroscience Society, also in Melbourne. www.acns.org.au/conferences/...)
A great opportunity to attend two fantastic conferences.

This conference is organised by the Australasian Society for Philosophy and Psychology (theaspp.org) via the Monash Centre for Consciousness and Contemplative Studies (www.monash.edu/m3cs)

They invite contributions from all subfields of cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy and the areas in between.
I'll be there! :)

ASPP 2025 Melbourne Australasian Society for Philosophy and Psychology 2025 Conference Melbourne, November 24th - 25th, 2025

The Australasian Society for Philosophy and Psychology 2025 Conference will be held at Monash University (Caulfield Campus) 24-25 Nov.
That's just before the Australian Cognitive Neuroscience Society, also in Melbourne!

Abstract submissions open until 1 October: sites.google.com/monash.edu/a...

This is a tension with contributorship that slows reform, in part because it is hard to articulate and sounds elitist (which it is), so people tend not write about it.
#metascience #scholarlyPublishing

Andrey's second point is an important insight. Behind the authorship system lurks this vague and un-explicit auteur (in the sense of a brilliant film director or artist) mentality and attachment to a "great minds" model of science.

Yes there is: CrossRef, which is the biggest gateway between journal articles and scholarly databases, has been saying for a while that they would add CRediT, which would help link one's ORCID to the CRediT metadata in one's papers.

This is a positive step toward contributorship, the principle that all major contributors to a project should receive appropriate credit, and in today's academic system, authorship is essential for that.
#metascience #scholarlyPublishing

Whereas “revising” seems to imply that a person has to contribute to a change in the writing, “reviewing” suggests that confirmation the writing is correct is enough.