English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Contributorship statements have been effective at recording granular authorcontributions in research articles and have been broadly used to understand howlabor is divided across research teams. However, one major limitation inexisting empirical studies is that two classification systems have beenadopted, especially from its most important data source, journals published bythe Public Library of Science (PLoS). This research aims to address thislimitation by developing a mapping scheme between the two systems and using itto understand whether there are differences in the assignment of contributionby authors under the two systems. We use all research articles published inPLoS ONE between 2012 to 2020, divided into two five-year publication windowscentered by the shift of the classification systems in 2016. Our results showthat most tasks (except for writing- and resource-related tasks) are usedsimilarly under the two systems. Moreover, notable differences between howresearchers used the two systems are also examined and discussed. This researchoffers an important foundation for empirical research on division of labor inthe future, by enabling a larger dataset that crosses both, and potentiallyother, classification systems.

Are research contributions assigned differently under the two contributorship classification systems in PLoS ONE?