Similarly, the CAHS report on team science (https://www.cahs-acss.ca/academic-recognition-of-team-science-how-to-optimize-the-canadian-academic-system/?) noted, “[CRediT] lack[s] clinical research,
health services, and community engagement roles, and are thus incomplete in terms of recognizing the
full slate of roles in team science across health, life, and biomedical science research.”
Also, an initial assessment of the CRediT taxonomy by researchers at Université de Montréal and elsewhere showed that first and last authors usually contribute to more tasks than middle authors (Larivière & Desrochers, 2016). And they note that it is still unclear, however, whether each contribution within the CRediT schema is properly recognized or whether bias still exists towards certain positions in the reference list.
Finally, there’s another contributorship schema that’s used by OpenVIVO, an application that “enables
the discovery of researchers across institutions” (OpenVIVO, 2017). The OpenVIVO schema includes
almost 60 separate and more detailed roles than those listed in the CRediT schema, including those
related to data creation and sharing, educational material development, and funding acquisition for
a project. The OpenVIVO contributorship taxonomy is applied already published/posted published works, preprints, and other research & scholarly output.
I think all of these perspectives should be considered in updating/revising the CRediT schema. Moreover, it would be very interesting to understand how such a contributorship schema is actually being used by researchers–is it being incorporated into annotated CVs, for example–and in evaluating researchers, such as within the context of promotion and tenure.