A test attempt at moving some of the Product team feature definition and prioritisation into GitHub. The aim is to create more detailed feature definitions, provide more transparent prioritisation and more effective "linking" of product design to development tickets (currently in the xPub project board).
Allow authorship from non-scientists somehow. "Citizen scientists" and other groups involved in research should get recognition for their contributions. Why can't they currently? Does publishing assume/require an institution? What would need to change to enable this?
In our view, protocols for academic authorship need to adapt to acknowledge those members of the public who are increasingly engaging in important collaborations with researchers. These citizen scientists, who might include naturalists, farmers or Indigenous communities, rarely meet rigid journal-imposed criteria for authorship (see, for example, go.nature.com/2urkbrp). Consequently, protocols designed to stamp out ethical breaches, such as ghost authorship and conflicts of interest, exclude contributors who are not professional scientists.
Providing due credit is a core tenet of scientific ethics, and citizen scientists are pivotal to research projects and to the resulting publications.
Creating group co-authorships for cohorts of citizen scientists would credit them under a collective identity (see, for example, G. Ward-Fear et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. http://doi.org/ggd6v7; 2019). Furthermore, citizen scientists can play a crucial part in the uptake of scientific understanding by the general public.
Allow authorship from non-scientists somehow. "Citizen scientists" and other groups involved in research should get recognition for their contributions. Why can't they currently? Does publishing assume/require an institution? What would need to change to enable this?
From: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00422-9