Abstract:BACKGROUND:The past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of contributors per article, which has made explicitly defining the roles of each contributor even more challenging. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was developed to explicitly define author roles, but there is a lack of empirical data on how CRediT is used in clinical trials. This study aimed to provide empirical data on the use of CRediT in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and discuss some limitations of CRediT. A new taxonomy (CRediT-RCT) is proposed to explicitly define the author roles in RCTs.METHODS:The electronic database of PubMed was searched from July 2017 to October 2019 to identify component trials with a randomized controlled design. Publications from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) were included because they embed the CRediT roles within the authors' metadata rather than solely as a separate paragraph of text.RESULTS:A total of 446 articles involving 4,185 authors were included in the study. Most authors participated in the study's conceptualization (44.9%) and investigation (48.8%), but only a fraction of the authors participated in software management (7.4%). Many CRediT roles were correlated with each other: the strongest correlation was the one between funding acquisition and conceptualization (correlation metric =0.39), followed by the one between conceptualization and methodology (0.37). The authors who acquired funding (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.54-2.76; P<0.001), did project administration (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.17-2.03; P=0.002), performed supervision (OR: 2. 60; 95% CI: 1.93-3.52; P<0.001), wrote the original draft (OR: 4.83; 95% CI: 3.54-6.60; P<0.001), or were the first author (OR: 7.85; 95% CI: 5.71-10.87; P<0.001), were more likely to be the corresponding author. Also, while the original draft writing was significantly associated with the designation of the first author (OR: 37.49; 95% CI: 25.29-57.57; P<0.001), the first author did not perform review and editing (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; P<0.001), supervision (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67; P<0.001), or resource management (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50-1.00; P=0.053). We further propose a novel Contributor Roles Taxonomy for Randomized Controlled Trials (CRediT-RCT) which includes 10 roles.CONCLUSIONS:The present study provides empirical data on the use of CRediT for RCTs, and some limitations of the taxonomy are discussed. We further propose a new CRediT-RCT which includes 10 roles.

CRediT Statement for Recognizing Author Contributions

Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what

The Contributor Roles for Randomized Controlled Trials and the Proposal for a Novel CRediT-RCT.

Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

Rethinking the Value of Author Contribution Statements in Light of How Research Teams Respond to Retractions

Credit where credit is due

Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals

Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories

ChatGPT isn't an author, but a contribution taxonomy is needed

Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article

The case for affiliation contribution statements

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors

Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade

Recognising contributions to work in research collaboratives: Guidelines for standardising reporting of authorship in collaborative research

On the Announcement of Author's Contribution in the sci-tech journals

Reviewer's Recognition