This document discusses issues related to assigning credit and authorship for scholarly works. It raises questions about who has authority to determine credit, how credit should be defined and counted, and how to address potential bias. It also notes that proper credit requires infrastructures to support design, conceptualization, methodology, software and validation. Collaboration will be needed from various individuals and organizations to further develop solutions.

1. Comments,
Observations, Rants
Cameron Neylon - ProjectCRediT - 10 December 2014
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0068-716X

2. Metadata?

3. Who is authoritative?

4. What is credit?
http://cameronneylon.net/blog/the-science-exchange/

5. Counting?

6. Nils Hagen, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.g001 CC BY

7. Nils Hagen, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.g001 CC BY

8. Nils Hagen, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.003 CC BY NC-ND

9. Liability/Responsibility
?

10. 1. Use cases

11. 2. Use cases

12. 3. User Experience

13. Bias, Geography,
Discipline, Gender,
Perspective, Agenda

14. Infrastructures?

15. Infrastructures.

16. Infrastructures that
support design

17. • Conceptualisation (CN, Rob Peters, Shirley Wu,
Geoff Bilder, Jennifer Lin, Julia Lane…)
• Methodology (CN)
• Software (Apple, Google, PLOS, Elsevier)
• Validation (You lot)
• Resources (Nils Hagen)