Is there a simplified version of the CRediT (https://credit.niso.org/) taxonomy of contributor roles out there? I love the idea but never got why anyone would care about about the four different types of manager or whether someone "curated" or "collected" the data used in a paper.
Agreed that the distinction between "Data curation" (as a specific role) and and collection of data (as part of "Investigation") is not really useful / somewhat confusing, in #CRediT. Also, for example, aren't Methodology and Formal Analysis both part of Investigation?
So yes, I agree heartily with the more general sentiment that a simpler, clearer version of CRediT would be highly desireable. But I also think it is a really good start!
@christof@joeroe I would argue that indeed curation and collection of data are different activities, no? In my understanding, curation includes active work on the data that's been collected, to be distinguished from merely collecting them. #CRediT#taxonomy (edit: added hashtags)
@christof@joeroe and to be honest, I had rather the opposite impression when trying to use the #CRediT#taxonomy for a #DigitalScholarlyEdition (different beast than a research paper), i.e. that it does not yet cover all roles conceivable resp. indeed being involved in the process. Have to find the time to suggest adding these.
I'm not saying it is not possible to distinguish curation from collection; or from enrichment, annotation and publication. But the way these things are set up in #CRediT at the moment is just not very systematic.
But entirely agree that there are also things that are missing.
More generally speaking, I think the disciplinary scope that the CRediT designers apparently had in mind did not necessarily include the Humanities.