Who Did What? A Researcher's Guide to the CRediT Taxonomy

Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to journal articles has long been challenging. It can be difficult to rank coauthors, and it is not unheard of for some coauthors to be included (or excluded) inappropriately. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is intended to better define who should be credited for a paper and how. 

What Is the CRediT Taxonomy? 

CRediT is a scheme that uses 14 predefined phrases to describe how the authors of a study contributed to that study. It was introduced in 2014 to help improve fairness and transparency by making authors' and contributors' roles clearer and better defined (Godskesen et al. 2025). 

Since then, academic publishing has begun adopting the CRediT taxonomy, starting with the PLOS journals in 2017, and many journals require it with article submissions, either as part of the text or for the journal’s records. CRediT also became a standard in 2022, paving the way for its inclusion in a publication’s metadata. 

What Problems Is CRediT Meant to Solve? 

These are some of the issues CRediT and similar taxonomies are intended to address: 

• Reducing or eliminating honorary (courtesy) authorship and ghost authorship (the uncredited preparation of a manuscript that is ascribed to other authors). Honorary (courtesy) authorship involves including someone as an author despite their lack of contribution to the research described in a paper. This is sometimes done to boost a colleague's apparent research output.  
• Preventing or resolving authorship disputes and ensuring that credit is given where it is due.  

If someone makes a contribution that fits one of the 14 categories, they need to be included as an author or mentioned in the acknowledgements. 

The 14 CRediT Roles 

The 14 CRediT roles can be organized into four categories. It is not necessary for a study to cover all 14 roles—most do not—and a single contributor can have multiple roles. 

Planning and design 

• Conceptualization 

• Methodology 

• Software (development, design, testing) 

Research and analysis 

• Validation 

• Formal Analysis 

• Investigation 

• Resources 

• Data Curation 

Communication 

• Writing—Original Draft 

• Writing—Review & Editing 

• Visualization 

Management 

• Supervision 

• Project Administration 

• Funding Acquisition 

Where Does AI Fit? Nowhere in the CRediT Statement 

Current journal policies are clear: AI tools cannot hold CRediT roles. The ICMJE, COPE, and virtually every major publisher hold that AI cannot be an author because it cannot take responsibility for the work. This accountability is exactly what a contributor role asserts. If you use AI tools in your research or writing, disclose that use where your target journal specifies (typically the methods or acknowledgements), but never in the contribution statement. A reviewer who finds an AI tool listed among the contributors will question the authors' understanding of both. 

What Our Editors Notice in CRediT Statements 

As editors, we do not see what happens behind the scenes when an article is written, so we cannot comment on whether someone has been credited or included appropriately. What we do notice, however, is the following: 

The statement is often omitted entirely.  

Although this is not a problem when a journal or other publication doesn’t use CRediT, including the taxonomy is becoming an increasingly common requirement. It’s also good practice to note who contributed what to the article and the research behind it. 

The organization isn’t clear.  

It’s not always clear how the CRediT statement is organized. Most commonly, they are organized alphabetically by author or in author list order. The roles themselves are sometimes given in different orders for different authors. 

Initials can create ambiguity. 

Contributors are often identified by their initials. While this is a common convention and may be mandated by a journal, it poses a couple of difficulties for the reader. One, they may have to look at the front matter to know who’s who. Two, the contributions may be misattributed when authors share the same initials. 

There are issues with capitalization or punctuation. 

Although following it is not mandatory, using the standard CRediT capitalization makes it easier to pick out each role term. Another issue is inconsistent or unclear punctuation of the list. 

Examples of CRediT Statements 

The following are some examples for fictional researchers F. Taylor, L. Smith, S. Patel, S. Parsons, and M. Brewer (whose names appear in this order in the author list). 

The first statement is not organized alphabetically or by position in the author list, and the authors are identified by their initials. 

FT: Writing—Original Draft, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration; SP: Supervision, Writing—Review & Editing; MB: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft; SP: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft; LS: Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing. 

The second statement is ordered according to the author list and distinguishes Parsons and Patel. However, the punctuation (mixed commas, semicolons, and colons) makes reading the statement difficult. 

FT: Writing—Original Draft, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, LS, Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing; S. Parsons: Supervision, Writing—Review & Editing, S. Patel: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, MB, Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft. 

In the third statement, authors are arranged alphabetically, but the capitalization scheme is applied inconsistently: 

Brewer: conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original draft; Parsons: Supervision, Writing—Review & Editing; Patel: investigation, writing—Original Draft; Smith: visualization, writing—review & editing; Taylor: Writing—original Draft, funding acquisition, Project Administration. 

This final statement includes each author’s surname, is organized alphabetically, and uses the CRediT capitalization convention. 

Brewer: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft; Parsons: Supervision, Writing—Review & Editing; Patel: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft; Smith: Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing; Taylor: Writing—Original Draft, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration. 

Whatever its imperfections, the CRediT taxonomy has the potential to improve how authors and contributors are credited for their roles in research, and it is here to stay. 

Getting the details right doesn't stop at the contribution statement.
Order Academic Editing to give your full manuscript the same attention.

Further Reading

• The official CRediT resource hub 
• Elsevier's CRediT policy

• Partin, K., & Hosseini, M. (2026). Using the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) as a tool in resolving authorship disputes at the NIH. Accountability in Research, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2596063

• Godskesen, T., Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2026). Implementation, barriers, and improvement strategies for CRediT: A scoping review. Accountability in Research, 33(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2528953

• Holcombe, A. O. (2019). Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What. Publications, 7(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048