data-hazards
data-hazards copied to clipboard
very-good-science
Credit for people who help with the project
In the spirit of all-contributors, it would be cool if on the website and repository we can credit people for their involvement in the project. e.g. peer review, feedback, ideas - would link in nicely too if we'd like people to be able to suggest changes to the hazards via GH issues.
To-do:
- [x] Add all-contributors page to the website
- [x] Make sure all-contributors is up to date #36
- [ ] Look at workshop 1 feedback and decide if we want to make any tweaks for workshop 2 about asking about credit
Yeah, absolutely! Great minds think alike because I put all-contributors on #15 this morning 😄 .
And definitely, I would like to credit anyone who gives us useful feedback, like Valerio! And also Conor and SCEEM for funding.
A similar thought: for this round of the workshop, the participants will not get credit (since they are anonymous), but maybe being credited is something that they can opt-in to in the future... I wonder if Kirstie navigated Human Participants style ethics for the book dashes, etc. I don't remember seeing a Participant Info Sheet, which makes me think that contributors in that situation are classed as collaborators/contributors rather than "participants" - but they are not all researchers or software engineers. This is such a fuzzy area!
Similarly, I wonder if there is a better way of crediting people who care less about GitHub? Like, for sociology researchers maybe acknowledgement in a paper with ORCid would be more useful, or for members of the public for example maybe there is some better way of saying thank you. I can't find the article that I started reading that had this in it, but I'm dropping this here as a reminder to check if anyone can help me find it: https://twitter.com/StatalieT/status/1390220334775812097
You're so right - the line feels very fuzzy! Also dropping this here RE what you've said about ORCIDs etc https://support.jmir.org/hc/en-us/articles/115001449591-What-is-a-group-author-collaborative-author-and-does-it-need-an-ORCID- The option to co-author as a group of workshop attendees for example, or include all collaborators ?
Well, I guess it depends what people want. I feel like individuals should be able to be credited individually (either in acknowledgements or even as authors - they would have to approve the manuscript) if they want to. I think it would be cool if research was less individual-focused (which makes the joint ORCid pretty cool). But since it is quite like that and people do get ranked/scored by "number" of papers, it makes sense that it's important to people and so I would like people to be able to get credit for their contributions to group projects.
A group authorship also makes sense to me, though, especially for Data Ethics Club if they give us feedback in a discussion primarily. Potentially it could make sense if Data Hazards has a similar persisting community (i.e. through a mailing list, etc) - but it feels a little strange to me to give it it's own joint ORCid if we aren't imagining it as a persistent community, because it just seems to obscure things a little. I'm not sure if this is a weird point of view!?
I don't think you can have an ORCid for a whole group, more that you would have people connected as a group, and all of their individual ORCids would be linked to it so they are credited for being part of the publication/output/thing. I guess how we approach it will depend on how many people and what kinds of contributions there are eventually!
@ninadicara: maybe we need to think about what specific to-do items there are on this issue at our next meeting
I am thinking that we will probably not get very specific answers about this out of the initial workshop, because we don't ask very specific questions in the survey. Maybe we can see if any ideas about credit come to the fore when we ask people in the free text section of the feedback for this first workshop. If not, maybe in the future, we can ask more about specifics, e.g. would being credited in the acknowledgements section of data science papers make you more likely to participate? Would being credited as an author on a Data Hazards paper make you more likely to contribute?
Current thoughts are, in our consent form, could we just have a question that is like?
- [ ] I would prefer to forgo anonymity, and instead be credited by Data Hazards in the form of Acknowledgements on relevant papers and as part of all contributors on GitHub.
How to credit you: Full Name, Orcid (optional), GitHub account (optional), other website (optional)
Closing this for now because we've landed on all-contributors for credit :)