Article: OpenVIVO Transparency in Scholarship


Article: OpenVIVO Transparency in Scholarship

Used the CRediT Taxonomy and other sources to develop a contribution role ontology that is part of the “VIVO open source platform, provides transparent access to data about the scholarly work of its participants.”


I added the OpenVIVO reference to the Contributor Recognition library at, a public group you can all join.



Hi Holly! Awesome - thanks! Any chance you can post it here, too? I don’t use Mendeley currently, but would like to have access.


There are 98 references currently in the Mendeley library and I add to it periodically. The very best way to access all of the references’ details, including links to the articles, is by way of joining the group on Mendeley. Below is the bibliography though.


  1.    Ahmed, S. M., Maurana, C. A., Engle, J. A., Uddin, D. E. & Glaus, K. D. A method for assigning authorship in multiauthored publications. Fam. Med. 29, 42–44 (1997).
  2.    Alexande, K. S. Collaborative writing in the context of science 2.0. in i-KNOW ’15 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business 30, (ACM, 2015).
  3.    Allen, L. Moving beyond authorship: recognizing the contributions to research. BioMed Central blog (2015). at <>
  4.    Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M. & Altman, M. Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature 508, 312–313 (2014).
  5.    Araújo, T. & Fontainha, E. The specific shapes of gender imbalance in scientific authorships: A network approach. J. Informetr. 11, (2017).
  6.    Azoulay, P., Fons-Rosen, C. & Zivin, J. S. G. Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time? NBER Working Paper (2015). at <>
  7.    Bales, M. E. et al. Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals. J. Biomed. Inform. (2014). at <>
  8.    Bao, P. & Zhai, C. Dynamic credit allocation in scientific literature. Scientometrics (2017). doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2335-9
  9.    Beaver, D. B. & Rosen, R. Studies in scientific collaboration - Part II. Scientific Co-authorship, Research Productivity, and Visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799-1830. Scientometrics 1, 133–149 (1979).
  10.  Beaver, D. d. & Rosen, R. Studies in scientific collaboration - Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1, 65–84 (1978).
  11.  Beaver, D. d. & Rosen, R. Studies in scientific collaboration - Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1, 231–245 (1979).
  12.  Beebe, T. Incentivizing and rewarding team science in the appointment and promotion process at Mayo Clinic. Presentation at the 2016 Annual International Science of Team Science Conference (2016). at < 2016 conference program final 05may2016.pdf>
  13.  Bennett, L. M. & Gadlin, H. Collaboration and Team Science: From Theory to Practice. J. Investig. Med. 60, 768–775 10.231/JIM.0b013e318250871d (2012).
  14.  Bernela, B. & Milard, B. Co-authorship Network Dynamics and Geographical Trajectories - What Part Does Mobility Play? Bull. Sociol. Methodol. Methodol. Sociol. 131, 5–24 (2016).
  15.  Bishop, P. R., Huck, S. W., Ownley, B. H., Richards, J. K. & Skolits, G. J. Interdisciplinary Mentoring in Science: Strategies for Success. Research Evaluation August, (2014).
  16.  Börner, K., Dall’Asta, L., Ke, W. & Vespignani, A. Studying the Emerging Global Brain: Analyzing and Visualizing the Impact of Co-Authorship Teams. Complex. Spec. Issue Underst. Complex Syst. 10, 57–67 (2005).
  17.  Boyer, S., Ikeda, T., Lefort, M.-C., Malumbres-Olarte, J. & Schmidt, J. M. Percentage-Based Author Contribution Index. A Universal Measure Of Author Contribution To Scientific Articles. bioRxiv 2, 1–9 (2017).
  18.  Bozeman, B. & Youtie, J. Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring. Sci. Eng. Ethics (2015). doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5
  19.  Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M. & Scott, J. Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn. Publ. 28, 151–155 (2015).
  20.  Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. Academic Recognition of Team Science: How to Optimize the Canadian Academic System. Report (Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, 2017). at <>
  21.  Cassuto, L. The Changing Face of Scientific Collaboration. Chron. High. Educ. August 14, (2016).
  22.  Cell Press. Cell Press use of ‘CRediT’ taxonomy. Cell Press Author Guidelines (2015). at <>
  23.  Conn, V. S. et al. Managing Opportunities and Challenges of Co-Authorship. West. J. Nurs. Res. 0193945914532722- (2014). at <>
  24.  Conte, M. L., Maat, S. L. & Bishr Omary, M. Increased co-first authorships in biomedical and clinical publications: A call for recognition. FASEB Journal 27, 3902–3904 (2013).
  25.  Corrêa Jr., E. A., Silva, F. N., da F. Costa, L. & Amancio, D. R. Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts. J. Informetr. 11, 498–510 (2017).
  26.  Council of Science Editors. Who’s the Author? Problems with Biomedical Authorship, and Some Possible Solutions. Report (2000). at <>
  27.  Council of Science Editors. CSE Recommendations for Group-Author Articles in Scientific Journals and Bibliometric Databases. Report 5–10 (2005). at <>
  28.  de Mesnard, L. Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 0, 1–11 (2017).
  29.  Dunleavy, P. Citations are more than merely assigning credit – their inclusion (or not) conditions how colleagues regard and evaluate your work. LSE Impact Blog April 6, (2017).
  30.  Editorial Staff. Who’d want to work in a team? Nature 424, 1 (2003).
  31.  Freeman, R. B. Collaborating With People Like Me : Collaborating With People Like Me : Ethnic Co-authorship within the US. in IZA Discussion Papers (2014).
  32.  Gans, J. S. & Murray, F. Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit. NBER Working Paper (2013). at <>
  33.  Georg, C. & Rose, M. E. The Importance of Informal Intellectual Collaboration with Central Colleagues. SSRN November 3, (2016).
  34.  Goldberg, M. a. & Kaiser, U. B. Editorial: The Rise of the Asterisk: One Step to Facilitate Team Science. Mol. Endocrinol. 29, 943–945 (2015).
  35.  Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E. & Ratner, H. ORCID: A system to uniquely identify researchers. Learn. Publ. 25, 259–264 (2012).
  36.  Haendel, M. On the Nature of Credit_Haendel_Force 11_VIVO. Presentation (2014). at <>
  37.  Hammer, M. J. & Christine Miaskowski. Authorship Ethics in the Era of Team Science. Oncol. Nurs. Forum 44, 2017 (2017).
  38.  Harp, G. Authors reflect on the CRediT taxonomy. CrossTalk Blog (2016). at <>
  39.  HHussler, C. & Sauermann, H. The Anatomy of Teams: Division of Labor and Allocation of Credit in Collaborative Knowledge Production. SSRN Electron. J. (2014). at <>
  40.  Hinnant, C. C. et al. Author team diversity and the impact of scientific publications: Evidence from physics research at a national science lab. Library & Information Science Research 34, 249–257 (2012).
  41.  Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M. & Hsieh, A. Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Sci. Adv. (2015).
  42.  ICMJE. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. (2008). at <>
  43.  Ilik, V., Conlon, M., Triggs, G., Haendel, M. & Holmes, K. L. OpenVIVO: Transparency in Scholarship. OSF Prepr. September, 1–17 (2017).
  44.  Jennings, M. M. & El-adaway, I. H. Ethical Issues in Multiple-Authored and Mentor-Supervised Publications. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 138, 37–47 (2012).
  45.  Kadel, A. & Walter, A. Do scholars in Economics and Finance react to alphabetical discrimination? Financ. Res. Lett. 14, 64–68 (2015).
  46.  Katz, D. S., Brand, A., Haendel, M. & Falk-Krzesinski, H. J. Our Scholarly Recognition System Doesn’t Still Work. Presentation (2015). at <>
  47.  Kavi, P. P. Research Networking and other Web based free resources for Electronic Document Delivery Services and user study on Research Scholars of Alliance University. in MANLIBNET 2015 1–11 (MANLIBNET 2015, 2015). at <>
  48.  Kennedy, D. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science (80-. ). 301, 733 (2003).
  49.  Khan, F. et al. Bibliometric analysis of authorship trends and collaboration dynamics over the past three decades of BONE’s publication history. Bone 107, 27–35 (2018).
  50.  Kumar, S. & Ratnavelu, K. Perceptions of scholars in the field of economics on co-authorship associations: Evidence from an international survey. PLoS One 11, 1–18 (2016).
  51.  Larivière, V. et al. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Soc. Stud. Sci. 46, 417–435 (2016).
  52.  Macrina, F. L. Scientific integrity : text and cases in responsible conduct of research. (ASM Press, 2005). at <>
  53.  Maliniak, D., Powers, R. M. & Walter, B. F. The Gender Citation Gap. in American Political Science Association 2013 Annual Meeting (American Political Science Association, 2013). at <>
  54.  Martinez, A., Epstein, C., Parsad, A., Setrakian, L. & Sarna, M. Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Partnerships for International Education (PIRE) Program. (2015). at <>
  55.  Mazumdar, M. et al. Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research. Acad. Med. 90, 1302–1308 (2015).
  56.  McGlynn, T. The Credit System in Science is Outdated. Vitae February 1, (2015).
  57.  Milojević, S. Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 3984–3989 (2014).
  58.  Moustafa, K. Contributorships Are Not ‘Weighable’ to be Equal. Trends Biochem. Sci. (2016). at <>
  59.  Mulligan, A. & Taylor, M. The challenges around defining authorship – you have your say. Elsevier Connect October, (2014).
  60.  Myers, B. K. R., George, D. R. & Green, M. J. Whose Name Goes First ? Vitae January 16, 1–5 (2017).
  61.  Nabout, J. C. et al. Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics 102, 357–364 (2014).
  62.  O’CONNELL, A. Implementing CRediT: An interview with Cell Press’s Gabriel Harp. Aries Systems News & Opinion (2016). at <>
  63.  Office, C., Communication, S., Cronin, B., Sugimoto, A. C. & Disruptions, S. The case for Open Research: the authorship problem. Unlocking Research Blog July 12, (2016).
  64.  Pain, E. Better Recognition for Multidisciplinary Research. Science Careers July 17, (2014).
  65.  Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., Rijcke, S. de & Rushforth, A. The Reward System of Science: Special Issue. Aslib Journal of Information Management (2017). at <>
  66.  Pohl, C. et al. How to successfully publish interdisciplinary research : learning from an. Ecol. Soc. 20, (2015).
  67.  Rikakis, T. Innovative faculty evaluation criteria for incentivizing high-impact interdisciplinary collaboration. in Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 1–6 (2009). doi:10.1109/FIE.2009.5350751
  68.  Rose, M. E. & Georg, C.-P. Academics: How plugging into well-connected colleagues can help research fly. The World Post 4–7 (2017). at <>
  69.  Sarsons, H. Gender Differences in Recognition for Group Work. (Harvard University, 2015). at <>
  70.  Sauermann, H. & Haeussler, C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci. Adv. 3, e1700404 (2017).
  71.  Saunders, P. In the era of ’team science’, will you get fair recognition? Laboratory News July 7, (2016).
  72.  Scheliga, K. in Internet Science 9089, 113–122 (Springer International Publishing, 2015).
  73.  Science Europe. Career Pathways in Multidisciplinary Research: How to Assess the Contributions of Single Authors in Large Teams. (2016). at <>
  74.  Shen, H.-W. & Barabási, A.-L. Collective credit allocation in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2014). doi:10.1073/pnas.1401992111
  75.  Silvestre, J., Wu, L. C., Lin, I. C. & Serletti, J. M. Gender Authorship Trends of Plastic Surgery Research in the United States. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 138, 136e–142e (2016).
  76.  Smart, J. C. & Bayer, A. E. Author collaboration and impact: A note on citation rates of single and multiple authored articles. Scientometrics 10, 297–305 (1986).
  77.  Stallings, J. et al. Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 9680–5 (2013).
  78.  Stirling, A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface 4, 707–719 (2007).
  79.  STM Publishing News. PLOS and CRediT Document Comprehensive and Standardized Author Contributions. STM Publ. News (2016). at <http://www.stm?>
  80.  Stvilia, B. et al. Composition of science teams and publication productivity. in ASIST (2010). at <>
  81.  Stvilia, B. et al. Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62, 270–283 (2011).
  82.  Sweet, D. Giving Authors the CRediT They Deserve:Promoter. CrossTalk Blog (2015). at <>
  83.  Taylor, M. & Thorisson, G. A. Fixing authorship – towards a practical model of contributorship. Res. Trends November, 1–5 (2012).
  84.  Taylor, M. Which author did what ?! Clarifying attribution in a digital world. Elsevier Connect April, (2013).
  85.  The Academy of Medical Sciences. Improving recognition of team science contributions in biomedical research careers. (2016). at <>
  86.  The Academy of Medical Sciences. Improving recognition of team science contributions in biomedical research careers. (2016). at <>
  87.  Tsai, C.-C. C., Corley, E. A. & Bozeman, B. Collaboration experiences across scientific disciplines and cohorts. Scientometrics 108, 505–529 (2016).
  88.  van Dijk, D., Manor, O. & Carey, L. B. Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Curr. Biol. 24, R516-7 (2014).
  89.  Verbree, M., Horlings, E., Groenewegen, P., Van der Weijden, I. & van den Besselaar, P. Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: a multivariate study of biomedical research groups. Scientometrics 102, 25–49 (2014).
  90.  VIVO. OpenVIVO Contributorship Schema. at <>
  91.  Voosen, P. Microbiology Leaves the Solo Author Behind. Chronicle of Higher Education (2013). at <>
  92.  Walsh, J. P. & Lee, Y.-N. The bureaucratization of science. Res. Policy 44, 1584–1600 (2015).
  93.  West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J. & Bergstrom, C. T. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS One 8, e66212 (2013).
  94.  Wilson, R. New Gender Gap in Scholarship - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chronicle of Higher Education (2014). at <>
  95.  Wren, J. D. et al. The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Rep. 8, 988–991 (2007).
  96.  Xu, J., Ding, Y., Song, M. & Chambers, T. Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67, 1973–1989 (2016).
  97.   Youtie, J. & Bozeman, B. Dueling Co-Authors: How Collaborators Create and Sometimes Solve Contributorship Conflicts. Minerva July 2, 1–23 (2016).


I can make joining a bit easier, by sending a “join” link directly to anyone interested; just email me off group with you preferred email address at



Hi Alison,
If you want access to the article - its open access and available here:


Super helpful. Thank you, Cory.