One of the coolest things about the PLOS paper I was reading this morning — citation at the end of this post — is the way it distinguishes the different author contributions:
Sort of like the credits at the end of film/television shows, no?
This is a model that other venues ought to adopt. It adds to the richness/meaning of the author list. Personally, I’d love to see something like this for ACM CHI or CSCW conferences. Some of those author lists get quite long, and the story of who did what gets a bit muddled. I am especially grateful that conceptualization has been called out as a contribution type. I place a great deal of value on conceptualization, and I am glad to see it reflected in this framework.
Citation: Chen, P-Y, Hayes, E, Lariviere, V, Sugimoto, CR (2018) Social reference managers and their users: A survey of demographics and ideologies. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0198033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198033
