Meeting Notes: newly created Programme Ctee for CASRAI CRediT



The first meeting of the reinvigorated CASRAI CRediT Programme Committee was held recently. You can see the meeting notes below. Since this was the first meeting of the group there were not previous notes to approve. The committee was formed from an open call for expressions of interest to the CASRAI CRediT community.

In summary, the main actions from the meeting are around branding, soliciting feedback, outreach, and extending functionality:

  • Branding: “CASRAI CRediT” - is confirmed as the way to talk about CRediT
  • Identify a person or task group of the Committee to undertake a survey of those using CASRAI CRediT (solicit community for feedback) forward – This is proposed as a wide survey and will include people “off list”, it will I think be a large task – perhaps 2-3 people needed to volunteer to work together to lead this
  • Confirm whether outreach toward wider adoption goal can happen at the same time as survey. Form task group and move forward appropriately. – group above to propose
  • Identify who is responsible for public facing resource organization (this incl. leveraging existing resources and making available new ones such as Cory’s slides, Aries’ video, blog posts, etc) – volunteer needed, but Cory has offered to start thinking about an “orcid-like” video to promote CASRAI CRediT
  • Identify next steps on interoperability with ORCID and Crossref discussion – volunteer needed (since taken by Liz)
  • Volunteers to look at possible funding options to accelerate our work

The Committee actively seeks comments and/or questions on these meeting notes from the wider community. You can simply reply at the end of the notes or if you highlight any passage of text in the notes you will see a ‘quote’ popup that will automatically start a comment on just that passage.

Simon (CASRAI CRediT Co-chair - on behalf of the Committee)

CASRAI CRediT Program Committee Call - Notes

July 5, 2017. 11 am – 12 noon EST

Ade Deane-Prat, Alison O’Connell (notes), Cory Craig, Eric M Prager, Euan Adie, Gabe Harp, Georgina Humphreys, Helen Atkins (co-chair), Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Joy Davidson, Lisa Walton, Liz Allen, Simon Kerridge (co-chair), David Baker (CASRAI Office)

Elisa De Ranieri, Jord Hanus

###For info:

###Introductions & Overview
Each PC member briefly introduced themselves and their interest in CASRAI CRediT. David Baker gave an overview of CASRAI, standards, structure of organizational leadership

Open Discussion of CRediT: “We have the CRediT standard, what do we do with it?”

Helen identifies slow publisher adoption.

Helen mentions existence of icons – have been created by Mozilla Labs and were in use initially by GigaScience. Are they being used? Checking the GigaScience web site, evidence of the icons in use has been lost since they changed publisher from BioMedCentral to OUP. Suggests a survey of authors using CRediT.

Gabe suggests the survey be completed before any changes to the taxonomy are considered.

Helen suggests focus on following topics, and the group added their input:

  • Maintenance
  • Enhancements
  • Suggestions to make role descriptions available within systems collecting/ displaying roles (Ade)
  • Synonyms or discipline specific guidance to enhance HASS friendliness factor (Ade)
  • Liz suggests we apply for a grant to properly kick things off, as we need resources to support wider use and testing
  • Holly suggests expanding the CRediT schema to fully support all areas/disciplines of research and scholarship, including health/clinical/community research, A&H research and scholarship, and development of educational resources in research (consider the feedback in the recent CAHS team science report)
  • Holly also suggests: CASRAI CRediT roles compared with OpenVIVO contributor roles (and others?); How researchers report CRediT, e.g. on their CVs; How evaluators view CRediT, e.g., University P&T committees and Funders grant review panels (both program staff and peer review); Bias of CRediT roles as viewed by authors, readers, and evaluators: Some roles viewed as inherently more important than others, literature reporting on strong ties between roles and first/last author roles;
  • Advocacy / Outreach / Barriers to adoption
  • Expanding publisher adoption
  • Alison points out EM’s degrees of contribution functionality as one way of managing a hierarchical application of roles
  • In order to properly undertake outreach, some naming/logo/branding decisions need to be made. Many agree
  • Cory suggests simple 1-2 page guide vs. the longer PDF in circulation (Cory shares her slides w/group).
  • Joy suggests that the taxonomy/use should be rewardable/ visually evident
  • Operationalize outreach
  • Make the branding decisions
  • Organize available resources
  • Execute on survey
  • Plan outreach to the over 7K journals that already have this integration at their fingertips (EM) using PLOS use case?
  • Get other submission systems to include this integration
  • Also capture in downstream systems
  • Alison confirms that JATS next release includes contributor role tag support (due out in 2018)
  • Alison confirms EM CRediT data is exportable via EM reports (EAR) and in the XML export from ProduXion Manager
  • Holly: Capturing CASRAI CRediT information in downstream systems for reporting and recognition (e.g., Scopus, WoS, ORCID, PubMed, etc);
  • Interoperability of the roles
  • via ORCID/Crossref deposit
  • Technical standards
  • should we have a tech guidance doc?


  • Notes will be circulated, approved then published to the wider community
  • Additional meetings will be scheduled for the coming 12 months
  • The PC will correspond via mailing list or web Forum in the meantime.
  • NB some PC members have yet to register on the forum
  • Plan to meet about every 2 months, but participate in smaller groups/ initiatives in the meantime.

Note: post meeting, it was confirmed that the international CASRAI Board already have branding expectations, and “CRediT” should be known as “CASRAI CRediT” – I think that this was a front runner in our discussions anyway.


Just to add to this discussion - at recent Jisc Research Data Network meeting in York, UK, Credit was raised as a good thing by researcher presenting on ensuring contributions for data lab staff dealing with processing large datasets. BUT issue is that when submitting an article, e.g. to PloS, author isn’t aware up front that needs to think about the different kinds of contributions so when gets presented with the list then not sure what to do … and will chose quickest option.
Also - publishers are not displaying the contributor roles prominently (or at all) on the online articles … this is true also in a lot of cases for ORCID. So we need to encourage publishers on both these counts.


Dear all

I attach a short set of slides that presents an overview of the history & rationale of CRediT


overview of CRediT background & use cases July 2017 - liz allen.pptx (1.0 MB)


Thanks Liz!


Liz’s slides look great. I am adding the slides I sent earlier (via email) to the forum.

Project-CreDiT-Slides-CC.pptx (1.2 MB)