Table 3 What makes the CalculAuthor different from existing authorship rubrics*?
Rubric | Year of Publication | Discipline | Key Differentiating Features from the CalculAuthor |
|---|---|---|---|
Analytical hierarchy process model (AHPM) [22] | 2006 | Engineering | • Weighting of creditable criteria is bound by subjective interpretable terminology such as ‘Criteria 1 contributes “weakly more/strongly more/demonstrably more/absolutely more” than Criteria 2ʹ • Relatively more complicated to use, understand, or explain to co-authors who are not acquainted with mathematical concepts • Authorship order determined using user-derived ranked fractional contributions • No process described for breaking tied scores or other conflict resolution • Lack of PI oversight with regards to accuracy of self-reporting contributions; necessitates that author be unbiased about their own contributions |
Authorship determination scorecard (ADS) and authorship tiebreaker scorecard (ATS) [23, 24] | 2014 (Based on Winston et al. [25]) | Psychology | • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • Weighting of creditable criteria is non-customizable and restrictive (using assigned fixed-point values) • Levels of contribution are quantified by distributing the points available for a certain authorship criterion between all authors rather than giving each author an independent score for each criterion • Tiebreaker rubric includes categories not provided in the first rubric, such as data entry, writing the abstract, or completing the IRB application; however, no information on what to do if scores on the tiebreaker rubric are also tied • No process described for other conflict resolution • Lack of PI oversight with regards to accuracy of self-reporting contributions; necessitates that author be unbiased about their own contributions |
Authorship matrix [26] | 2014 | Engineering | • Authorship only warranted if individual contributes to at least three of the four rubric categories • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • Tie-breaking by placing junior author ahead of the senior author • No process described for other conflict resolution • Authorship order determined by the descending order of net contribution percentage rather than total score • Lack of PI oversight with regards to accuracy of self-reporting contributions; necessitates that author be unbiased about their own contributions |
Authorship scale [27] | 1997 | Medicine | • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • No weighting of creditable criteria • Levels of contribution for creditable criteria can be variably quantified but are bound by subjective interpretable terminology such as “minimal”, “some”, and “significant” • Suggests some tasks do not warrant authorship but instead acknowledgement (e.g., data collection, providing participants, funding, or administrative support) • Conflicts and disputes are to be resolved by the head of the department (not by the PI) • In the case of a tie for first author, the author with the higher score on “conception” is given preference; when scores are equal, decision is made by consensus of the authors • Breaking tied scores for other authorship positions is the responsibility of the first author. If controversy remains, a committee will resolve the dispute, otherwise the authorship order will be determined by the head of the department |
Authorship schema [20] | 1985 | Psychology | • Levels of contribution are quantified by distributing the points available for a certain authorship criterion between all authors rather than giving each author an independent score for each criterion • Tied scores are broken using a coin toss • No process described for other conflict resolution • Individuals awarded less than 50 points are not awarded authorship and contributions are mentioned in acknowledgements • Points are assigned to authorship criteria by consensus among authors rather than self-reporting by authors |
Kosslyn’s criteria [28] | 2002 | Cognitive Science | • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • Point values assigned to all evaluative criteria sum to 1,000 points to be divided among users; the weightage/values assigned to each criterion can be modified • Contributors awarded more than 0 but less than 10% of the total points do not warrant authorship and are mentioned in the acknowledgements; individuals on the threshold are offered a chance to take on a bigger role to achieve authorship credit • No process described for breaking tied scores or other conflict resolution |
Simple framework for evaluating authorial contribution (SFEAC) [29] | 2016 | Engineering | • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • No weighting of creditable criteria • Levels of contribution for creditable criteria have fixed point values for three thresholds • Levels of contribution for creditable criteria are bound by subjective interpretable terminology such as “minimal”, “significant”, and “major” • A pre-determined total point threshold is set by the PI or by mutual agreement to determine cut-offs for authorship credit • No process described for breaking tied scores or other conflict resolution |
Worksheet for authorship [30] | 1987 | Ecology | • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • No weighting of creditable criteria • A “natural break” at the lower end of contribution scores is used to determine who is awarded authorship credit • All evaluative criteria are assigned 100 points each to be divided among authors rather than independent scores for each criterion • No process described for breaking tied scores or other conflict resolution |
Five-step authorship framework [31] | 2014 | Medicine | • Specific to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications • Provides a framework within which an authorship rubric can be developed for a specific clinical trial, but no pre-specified system to quantify authorship contribution beyond “substantial” • Although creditable criteria can be tailored to a specific clinical trial, only “substantial” contributions will count towards authorship which underplays the role of those who might have made minor contributions in multiple criteria • A committee keeps track of authorship contributions to account for accuracy in self-reporting contributions • Can be used to determine whether a collaborator’s contributions warrant authorship, but no way to rank said contributions against other collaborators and determine authorship order |
Survey-weighted analytic hierarchy process (S-AHP) [32] | 2021 | Medicine | • Can be used to determine whether a collaborator’s contribution warrants authorship as well as authorship rank based on quantification of ICMJE criteria metrics • Authorship only warranted if at least one component from ICMJE criterion 1, and one component from ICMJE criterion 2 has been contributed to, in addition to mandatory contribution to final approval and accountability for the study • Creditable criteria are non-customizable • Levels of contribution for specific creditable criteria are non-customizable • No process described for breaking tied scores or other conflict resolution • Lack of PI oversight with regards to accuracy of self-reporting contributions; necessitates that author be unbiased about their own contributions |