Research collaboration
Who Did What? A Practical Guide to CRediT Contribution Statements
Use CRediT to describe research contributions clearly, agree roles with collaborators and keep authorship decisions separate.
Discuss contributions early, record the work actually done and ask collaborators to confirm their roles. A contribution taxonomy does not decide author eligibility or author order.
For Indian research teams, check your university, ethics committee and receiving journal requirements alongside this workflow.
Separate contribution from authorship
Author lists rarely explain how a project was completed. CRediT offers 14 roles for describing contributions, including conceptualization, data curation, investigation, software and writing. It complements the author list. NISO's CRediT overview.
The taxonomy does not itself determine who qualifies as an author. Apply the receiving journal's authorship requirements separately. A contributor can have several roles, and several people can share one role. Contributors should have an opportunity to review and confirm their assigned roles. CRediT contributor guidance.
Agree a working record early
Our suggested practice is to create a contribution sheet at the first project meeting. Record planned responsibilities, an example of the work and a date for review. Update it when a researcher joins, the study changes or someone takes on additional work. Treat the sheet as a living conversation rather than a permanent allocation made before the research begins.
Ask practical questions: Who designed the study? Who collected and prepared the data? Who wrote and tested the software? Who interpreted the results? Who prepared the first draft and who substantially revised it? Match answers to the official role descriptions instead of inventing a role based on seniority.
Draft a clear statement
This fictional example demonstrates a format. It is not a claim about a ScholarVault project:
A. Rao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. B. Sen: Data curation, Software, Validation. C. Iyer: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Each person should check that their assigned roles reflect completed work. If the journal asks for a particular submission form, use that form rather than assuming a paragraph in the manuscript is sufficient. Keep the agreed version with the submission record.
Describe evidence in your internal sheet: a data dictionary, analysis commit, interview schedule or reviewed draft. This makes a later conversation more precise than asking how much someone helped in general.
Resolve differences before submitting
If collaborators disagree, review specific tasks and the journal's criteria together. Do not use a contribution statement to conceal an unresolved dispute about inclusion or author order. Follow your institution's process when the team cannot reach agreement.
- Confirm the role definitions used by the journal.
- Review completed contributions with every contributor.
- Check author eligibility and order separately.
- Record changes made during revision.
- Ensure the manuscript and submission-system statements agree.
Takeaway: a clear statement gives credit to actual work. It is most useful when supported by an early discussion and a record that evolves with the project.
Sources & editorial scope
Official sources checked on 5 October 2026. This article combines attributed guidance with ScholarVault’s suggested workflows and fictional examples. Requirements can change; check the receiving organisation’s current policy. No endorsement of ScholarVault by these organisations is implied.