contribution in research paper example

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history.

Drafting Authorship Contribution Statement: Best practices for academic publications

• 24 April, 2024

In the academic publishing landscape, authorship attribution stands as a cornerstone of recognition and accountability. However, amidst the complexities of collaborative research and evolving publication norms, crafting clear and equitable authorship statements can become a daunting task for even the most seasoned scholars.

  An authorship statement clarifies the roles and contributions of each researcher in conducted research. It plays a pivotal role in determining the accountability of the research published. Unfortunately, the rules around authorship are not always clear. Hence, as a researcher striving to establish your reputation, it is important to be well-versed with the ethical guidelines present for authorship.

  Defining Authorship

A foundational set of authorship criteria has been established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to the ICMJE, an individual must meet four essential requirements to qualify as an author of a research publication:

1.          Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.

2.          Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

3.          Final approval of the version to be published.

4.          Accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

These guidelines help ensure that authorship is reserved for those who have made significant intellectual contributions and can take responsibility for the integrity of the research. However, the process of determining authorship is not always straightforward, especially for large collaborative projects.

ICMJE further emphasises that the individuals conducting the work should collectively identify who meets the authorship criteria , ideally at the start of the project. This collaborative approach allows for open dialogue among colleagues. If the research team cannot agree on the authorship order, the issue should then be escalated to the institutions where the work was performed.

  Significance of Transparent Authorship

Establishing clear authorship contribution statements serves several important purposes.

  1. Enhancing Reader Understanding

Detailed authorship statements provide readers with a transparent overview of each author's specific role, allowing them to better evaluate the credibility and reliability of the research. It can be particularly valuable for interdisciplinary studies or large collaborative projects, where the individual contributions may not be immediately evident.

  2. Preventing Unethical Practices

It helps prevent unethical authorship practices, such as guest authorship (including individuals who did not meet the criteria) or ghost authorship (omitting individuals who did meet the criteria). These practices undermine the integrity of the scientific literature and can have serious consequences for the individuals involved, both professionally and ethically.

  3. Ensuring Proper Recognition

Clearly outlining author contributions allows authors to receive appropriate credit for their work, which is essential for career advancement, funding opportunities, and collaborative endeavours. This is particularly important for early-career researchers, who may face challenges in establishing their independent research profiles.

  Drafting Authorship Contribution Statement

As the gatekeepers of academic publishing, journals play a crucial role in enforcing standards for authorship. Many of them require authors to provide a detailed authorship contribution statement as part of the submission process.

  The authorship contribution statement should provide readers with a transparent overview of who was responsible for the key aspects of the research, from the initial conception and design to the final write-up and approval.

  One of the most adopted frameworks for structuring authorship contribution statements is the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). Credit provides a standardised vocabulary of 14 contributor roles.  

1. Conceptualisation

2. Data Curation

3. Formal Analysis

4. Funding Acquisition

5. Investigation

6. Methodology

7. Project Administration

8. Resources

9. Software

10. Supervision

11. Validation

12. Visualisation

13. Writing - Original Draft

14. Writing - Review & Editing

  Authors can indicate the degree of their contribution for each role (e.g., lead, supporting, or equal) in each area. This level of detail helps readers understand the specific responsibilities and expertise of each individual involved in the research.

  Here is an example of an authorship contribution statement using the CRediT system and a general approach:

Example of CReditT system:

Emily Davis: Conceptualisation (lead), Methodology (supporting), Validation (equal), Writing - Original Draft (lead), Writing - Review & Editing (equal).

Michael Smith: Conceptualisation (supporting), Investigation (lead), Formal Analysis (lead), Data Curation (equal), Writing - Review & Editing (equal).

Robert Snow: Resources (lead), Supervision (supporting).

  Example of general approach:

Emily Davis devised the project, the main conceptual ideas, proof outline, and wrote the manuscript. Michael Smith worked on all of the technical details and performed the numerical calculations for the suggested experiment. Robert Snow worked out the bound for quantum experiments and verified the results.

  Promoting Transparency and Integrity in Authorship

Establishing transparent and ethical authorship practices is crucial for maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of the scientific literature. By adhering to the ICMJE authorship criteria and utilising standardised frameworks like CRediT, researchers can ensure that credit and accountability are properly attributed to research contributions.

  When drafting authorship contribution statements, authors should carefully review the target journal's guidelines and follow best practices to avoid immoral authorship practices. By prioritising fairness and transparency in authorship decisions , the research community can strengthen the integrity of the publication process and foster a more inclusive and collaborative academic environment.

Share with your colleagues

How To Write A Research Paper

Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + FREE Template

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewer: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | March 2024

For many students, crafting a strong research paper from scratch can feel like a daunting task – and rightly so! In this post, we’ll unpack what a research paper is, what it needs to do , and how to write one – in three easy steps. 🙂 

Overview: Writing A Research Paper

What (exactly) is a research paper.

• How to write a research paper
• Stage 1 : Topic & literature search
• Stage 2 : Structure & outline
• Stage 3 : Iterative writing
• Key takeaways

Let’s start by asking the most important question, “ What is a research paper? ”.

Simply put, a research paper is a scholarly written work where the writer (that’s you!) answers a specific question (this is called a research question ) through evidence-based arguments . Evidence-based is the keyword here. In other words, a research paper is different from an essay or other writing assignments that draw from the writer’s personal opinions or experiences. With a research paper, it’s all about building your arguments based on evidence (we’ll talk more about that evidence a little later).

Now, it’s worth noting that there are many different types of research papers , including analytical papers (the type I just described), argumentative papers, and interpretative papers. Here, we’ll focus on analytical papers , as these are some of the most common – but if you’re keen to learn about other types of research papers, be sure to check out the rest of the blog .

With that basic foundation laid, let’s get down to business and look at how to write a research paper .

Overview: The 3-Stage Process

While there are, of course, many potential approaches you can take to write a research paper, there are typically three stages to the writing process. So, in this tutorial, we’ll present a straightforward three-step process that we use when working with students at Grad Coach.

These three steps are:

• Finding a research topic and reviewing the existing literature
• Developing a provisional structure and outline for your paper, and
• Writing up your initial draft and then refining it iteratively

Let’s dig into each of these.

Need a helping hand?

Step 1: Find a topic and review the literature

As we mentioned earlier, in a research paper, you, as the researcher, will try to answer a question . More specifically, that’s called a research question , and it sets the direction of your entire paper. What’s important to understand though is that you’ll need to answer that research question with the help of high-quality sources – for example, journal articles, government reports, case studies, and so on. We’ll circle back to this in a minute.

The first stage of the research process is deciding on what your research question will be and then reviewing the existing literature (in other words, past studies and papers) to see what they say about that specific research question. In some cases, your professor may provide you with a predetermined research question (or set of questions). However, in many cases, you’ll need to find your own research question within a certain topic area.

Finding a strong research question hinges on identifying a meaningful research gap – in other words, an area that’s lacking in existing research. There’s a lot to unpack here, so if you wanna learn more, check out the plain-language explainer video below.

Once you’ve figured out which question (or questions) you’ll attempt to answer in your research paper, you’ll need to do a deep dive into the existing literature – this is called a “ literature search ”. Again, there are many ways to go about this, but your most likely starting point will be Google Scholar .

If you’re new to Google Scholar, think of it as Google for the academic world. You can start by simply entering a few different keywords that are relevant to your research question and it will then present a host of articles for you to review. What you want to pay close attention to here is the number of citations for each paper – the more citations a paper has, the more credible it is (generally speaking – there are some exceptions, of course).

Ideally, what you’re looking for are well-cited papers that are highly relevant to your topic. That said, keep in mind that citations are a cumulative metric , so older papers will often have more citations than newer papers – just because they’ve been around for longer. So, don’t fixate on this metric in isolation – relevance and recency are also very important.

Beyond Google Scholar, you’ll also definitely want to check out academic databases and aggregators such as Science Direct, PubMed, JStor and so on. These will often overlap with the results that you find in Google Scholar, but they can also reveal some hidden gems – so, be sure to check them out.

Once you’ve worked your way through all the literature, you’ll want to catalogue all this information in some sort of spreadsheet so that you can easily recall who said what, when and within what context. If you’d like, we’ve got a free literature spreadsheet that helps you do exactly that.

Step 2: Develop a structure and outline

With your research question pinned down and your literature digested and catalogued, it’s time to move on to planning your actual research paper .

It might sound obvious, but it’s really important to have some sort of rough outline in place before you start writing your paper. So often, we see students eagerly rushing into the writing phase, only to land up with a disjointed research paper that rambles on in multiple

Now, the secret here is to not get caught up in the fine details . Realistically, all you need at this stage is a bullet-point list that describes (in broad strokes) what you’ll discuss and in what order. It’s also useful to remember that you’re not glued to this outline – in all likelihood, you’ll chop and change some sections once you start writing, and that’s perfectly okay. What’s important is that you have some sort of roadmap in place from the start.

At this stage you might be wondering, “ But how should I structure my research paper? ”. Well, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution here, but in general, a research paper will consist of a few relatively standardised components:

• Introduction
• Literature review
• Methodology

Let’s take a look at each of these.

First up is the introduction section . As the name suggests, the purpose of the introduction is to set the scene for your research paper. There are usually (at least) four ingredients that go into this section – these are the background to the topic, the research problem and resultant research question , and the justification or rationale. If you’re interested, the video below unpacks the introduction section in more detail. 

The next section of your research paper will typically be your literature review . Remember all that literature you worked through earlier? Well, this is where you’ll present your interpretation of all that content . You’ll do this by writing about recent trends, developments, and arguments within the literature – but more specifically, those that are relevant to your research question . The literature review can oftentimes seem a little daunting, even to seasoned researchers, so be sure to check out our extensive collection of literature review content here .

With the introduction and lit review out of the way, the next section of your paper is the research methodology . In a nutshell, the methodology section should describe to your reader what you did (beyond just reviewing the existing literature) to answer your research question. For example, what data did you collect, how did you collect that data, how did you analyse that data and so on? For each choice, you’ll also need to justify why you chose to do it that way, and what the strengths and weaknesses of your approach were.

Now, it’s worth mentioning that for some research papers, this aspect of the project may be a lot simpler . For example, you may only need to draw on secondary sources (in other words, existing data sets). In some cases, you may just be asked to draw your conclusions from the literature search itself (in other words, there may be no data analysis at all). But, if you are required to collect and analyse data, you’ll need to pay a lot of attention to the methodology section. The video below provides an example of what the methodology section might look like.

By this stage of your paper, you will have explained what your research question is, what the existing literature has to say about that question, and how you analysed additional data to try to answer your question. So, the natural next step is to present your analysis of that data . This section is usually called the “results” or “analysis” section and this is where you’ll showcase your findings.

Depending on your school’s requirements, you may need to present and interpret the data in one section – or you might split the presentation and the interpretation into two sections. In the latter case, your “results” section will just describe the data, and the “discussion” is where you’ll interpret that data and explicitly link your analysis back to your research question. If you’re not sure which approach to take, check in with your professor or take a look at past papers to see what the norms are for your programme.

Alright – once you’ve presented and discussed your results, it’s time to wrap it up . This usually takes the form of the “ conclusion ” section. In the conclusion, you’ll need to highlight the key takeaways from your study and close the loop by explicitly answering your research question. Again, the exact requirements here will vary depending on your programme (and you may not even need a conclusion section at all) – so be sure to check with your professor if you’re unsure.

Step 3: Write and refine

Finally, it’s time to get writing. All too often though, students hit a brick wall right about here… So, how do you avoid this happening to you?

Well, there’s a lot to be said when it comes to writing a research paper (or any sort of academic piece), but we’ll share three practical tips to help you get started.

First and foremost , it’s essential to approach your writing as an iterative process. In other words, you need to start with a really messy first draft and then polish it over multiple rounds of editing. Don’t waste your time trying to write a perfect research paper in one go. Instead, take the pressure off yourself by adopting an iterative approach.

Secondly , it’s important to always lean towards critical writing , rather than descriptive writing. What does this mean? Well, at the simplest level, descriptive writing focuses on the “ what ”, while critical writing digs into the “ so what ” – in other words, the implications . If you’re not familiar with these two types of writing, don’t worry! You can find a plain-language explanation here.

Last but not least, you’ll need to get your referencing right. Specifically, you’ll need to provide credible, correctly formatted citations for the statements you make. We see students making referencing mistakes all the time and it costs them dearly. The good news is that you can easily avoid this by using a simple reference manager . If you don’t have one, check out our video about Mendeley, an easy (and free) reference management tool that you can start using today.

Recap: Key Takeaways

We’ve covered a lot of ground here. To recap, the three steps to writing a high-quality research paper are:

• To choose a research question and review the literature
• To plan your paper structure and draft an outline
• To take an iterative approach to writing, focusing on critical writing and strong referencing

Remember, this is just a b ig-picture overview of the research paper development process and there’s a lot more nuance to unpack. So, be sure to grab a copy of our free research paper template to learn more about how to write a research paper.

You Might Also Like:

Can you help me with a full paper template for this Abstract:

Background: Energy and sports drinks have gained popularity among diverse demographic groups, including adolescents, athletes, workers, and college students. While often used interchangeably, these beverages serve distinct purposes, with energy drinks aiming to boost energy and cognitive performance, and sports drinks designed to prevent dehydration and replenish electrolytes and carbohydrates lost during physical exertion.

Objective: To assess the nutritional quality of energy and sports drinks in Egypt.

Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study assessed the nutrient contents, including energy, sugar, electrolytes, vitamins, and caffeine, of sports and energy drinks available in major supermarkets in Cairo, Alexandria, and Giza, Egypt. Data collection involved photographing all relevant product labels and recording nutritional information. Descriptive statistics and appropriate statistical tests were employed to analyze and compare the nutritional values of energy and sports drinks.

Results: The study analyzed 38 sports drinks and 42 energy drinks. Sports drinks were significantly more expensive than energy drinks, with higher net content and elevated magnesium, potassium, and vitamin C. Energy drinks contained higher concentrations of caffeine, sugars, and vitamins B2, B3, and B6.

Conclusion: Significant nutritional differences exist between sports and energy drinks, reflecting their intended uses. However, these beverages’ high sugar content and calorie loads raise health concerns. Proper labeling, public awareness, and responsible marketing are essential to guide safe consumption practices in Egypt.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Writing about Design

Principles and tips for design-oriented research.

Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”)

Introduction.

A good academic text delivers a clear and interesting message. That is often described as “contribution”. Good contributions teach something to the text’s readers: they change the reader’s way of thinking or acting, and increase their understanding and knowledge about an interesting subject. Thus, “a contribution is made when a manuscript clearly adds, embellishes, or creates something beyond what is already known” (Ladik & Stewart, 2008, p. 157). Such findings therefore present something that the researchers did not know so far; that is what makes the research article interesting.

Also a BA or a MA thesis deliver contributions. But their requirements for significant contribution are lower, as it is not crucial that a finding of a thesis should be a considered as a research contribution that generates novel understanding in the scientific community.

So, what are the possible findings and contributions that academic texts can make? Understanding what a contribution can be becomes easier over time, as one reads more literature and sees more examples of academic publications. But to get started more quickly, this article presents some classifications that I have found from other researchers’ writings, and finally presents a longer list that I have tailored for the fields of design and HCI.

The presentation of contributions in this article is in two parts: first I will discuss academic articles, and then I will add notes about BA/MA theses in HCI and design.

Types of findings and contributions in academic articles

Contributions can be classified along several dimensions. Some of the existing classifications are oriented to theoretical contributions. For example, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) “contribution continuum”, written for a marketing research audience, divides the possible contributions to 8 classes, organized from minor to fundamental scientific impacts:

• Straight replications: studies that verify whether a finding that has been already published can be repeated.
• Replication and extension: similar to the one above, but with an adjustment.
• Extension of a new theory/method in a new area.
• Integrative review (e.g., meta-analysis).
• New theories to explain an old phenomenon, possibly also including a comparison between an existing and the new theory against each other to find out which one works better.
• Identifications of new phenomena worth of attention.
• Grand syntheses that integrate earlier theories together.
• New theories that predict new phenomena.

In addition to presenting the continuum, Ladik and Stewart’s (2008) text is great also in emphasizing many other characteristics of good academic texts too, such as a need to think about the target reader audience, need to emphasise surprise, and demonstrate passion and relevance of the topic that has been studied.

In human–computer interaction (HCI), which is more oriented to human-created objects, other kinds of contributions can be recognized. Wobbrock (2012) and Wobbrock and Kientz (2016) do not define the contributions based on their magnitude, but in terms of types of outcomes. As we can see, the theoretical contributions that were listed above are only one possibility in applied fields such as HCI and design:

• empirical research findings (e.g., what factors and phenomena play an important role in different situations where people use technologies)
• artefacts (i.e., designs and technologies)
• surveys and reviews of existing research

In this classification, Wobbrock and Kientz’s papers themselves could be best classified as survey-like contributions, since their focus is on reviewing the kinds of research contributions in a research field as a whole. In this sence they synthesize together and explicate the practices in the field. In addition to being more directly useful also for HCI/design, Wobbrock’s suggestions are also great because both texts list papers from HCI research that exemplify these contribution types.

What is particular in the list above is the role of artifacts as research contributions. This is particular since it highlight’s HCI’s (and also design’s) nature as a “problem-solving” science (Oulasvirta and Hornbæk, 2016): in addition to producing the traditionally well-acknowledged empirical and conceptual (theoretical) contributions, HCI researchers also make constructive contributions by developing new technologies and designs.

Final distinction between contributions is their level of critical stance towards earlier research and practice. Most contributions are knowledge-increasing : they present new findings, expand the research to new areas, make existing theories and methods more detailed, accurate or more appropriate for some context, for example. These contributions are really common: with my colleagues we found, for example, that 94% of research papers in information systems research are knowledge-increasing (Salovaara et al., 2020). Many of the contribution classes presented in the lists above are like these too.

Other contributions are knowledge-contesting : they identify problems in the existing theories and methods, or in the practices by which they are used (Salovaara et al., 2020). They may also identify limits (“boundary conditions”) to the extent to which earlier contributions can be applied. In the spirit of science and research being a self-correcting process, the purpose of these knowledge-contesting contributions is to correct earlier mistakes in research and keep the research on the right track.

To summarise the considerations above, the following table presents a synthesis of possible contributions in HCI and design. A vast majority of the papers represent one (or sometimes several) of these contributions:

This list is not comprehensive, and some areas have been covered in more detail than others. What is however notable in this list’s items is that papers about these contributions can be written using the same narrative format. That is because most of these contributions require a study: some method by which some material is analysed so that findings can be presented. Such papers can be readily written following the IMRaD-style narrative . Only the last two contributions – recommendations/guidelines and research agendas/manifestos – may need a different kind of a narrative and can therefore be harder to write well.

Examples of non-contributions in academic research

Notably, there are also certain types of papers that are often submitted for publication but which are often rejected and will therefore be rarely found in academic literature. When one is writing an article, it is a good idea to make sure that one is not writing one of those types of papers. Four common non-contributions are following:

• Presentation of a well-designed system and its design process.  These papers present well-designed systems and include evaluations that demonstrate the high quality of the outcome. The problem with these kinds of papers is that for a researcher looking for novel information, such papers offer very little to learn: they “only” describe well-conducted design process that already uses well-known methods. Only if these design processes solve hard problems in some contexts, and that these problems and their solutions generalise to other contexts too, the papers start to have value in terms of an academic contribution. That is because then the academic reader may conclude that the authors have found a way to address a problem that previously has been considered difficult to tackle. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying a “design problem” that was solved in the process, and explaining why this problem is difficult and in what design situations similar problems can be encountered (i.e., where does the design problem and solution generalise to).
• Case study report.  Papers of this kind present observations or interview-based findings from field studies, and describe carefully methods that were used in these studies. A lot of effort may have been put into gathering all the data and to analyse it. Unfortunately, despite all the effort spent, also in this case, the conclusion by a reader may be that the story is interesting but lacks novelty: papers of this kind may be a well-conducted research projects but which only have applied rigorous methods without yielding novel findings. This kind of a study can be turned into an academic contribution by identifying an interesting and novel finding, and deepening the literature research so that it convinces the reader about the novelty and the need for this finding in the research field (e.g., a “research gap”).
• Mappings of findings to a framework.  Some papers present analyses from a complex settings and map these findings to a well-known theoretical framework (e.g. activity theory). The problem with such a finding is that it counts mostly as a demonstration that the framework can be used to make sense of observational data. This may not be surprising, if the same has been shown in numerous earlier studies too. This can be turned into an academic contribution, for example, by finding out that the framework cannot be used to make sense of some parts of the data, or that the framework needs adaptation because of the novel findings.
• Landscaping and clustering studies without conclusions . Some automatic data analysis methods nowadays allow researchers to generate elaborate descriptive visualizations and groupings that can summarise complex phenomena in a neat manner. Examples of these methods include social network analysis, clustering methods of multidimensional data (e.g., factor analysis, k-means clustering and topic modeling), and sentiment analysis about natural language. If a paper only presents the outputs of such analyses, without identifying non-obvious patterns or conclusions, the paper easily lacks a clear contribution. An academic contribution would include an actionable message to the research field: a call for changing the research focus, or think about a common phenomenon in a new way. Typically this requires that the researchers interpret their clusters and identify something unexpected from them.

Contributions and findings in BA and MA theses in HCI and design

In BA and MA theses, the requirements are slightly different than in academic articles. The difference lies in the need for presenting a contribution vs another, more modest kind of a finding. A thesis does not need to demonstrate novelty to an entire research field; it only needs to demonstrate the ability to apply the relevant methods, theories and analytical thinking with respect to a meaningful problem of practical importance. Therefore the three last above-presented examples of non-contributions are, in fact, good candidates for excellent BA or MA theses even if they lack an academic contribution.

One may therefore conclude that in BA and MA theses, the goals can be more practically determined: They may orient to finding good designs or solutions for specific design problems. They may be reflections about the nature of a design process, such as explorations whether a certain design approach yields findings that satisfy the designer. They may also be oriented towards a designer or practitioner community than the researchers. Therefore they may deliver a call or message to those communities to start addressing issues or become aware of matters that are being neglected. Such issues do not need to relate to academic activities, but to societal issues, for example.

One or many contributions?

There can be one or many contributions in a paper. Some contribution types also go naturally together. For example, sometimes the most interesting contributions appear in the Discussion, after the answers to the research question(s) have already been presented. Thus a paper about an exploratory study may be sense-making in its Findings (e.g., by identifying an interesting underlying pattern or concept in the findings and by giving a name for it), but a manifesto-like contribution in its Discussion if it then shows how that concept may be crucial to remember in other situations too. Many readers may find that this manifesto-like contribution is actually more important than the text’s original finding.

However, many instructions on academic writing recommend that every text focuses on delivering only one “contribution”. For example, instructions published in Nature’s web page recommend to “Keep your message clear” (Gewin, 2018). There is a good reason for this: To offer a clear and interesting message, different contributions usually require different investigations. If one tries to combine several contributions together, they may require different methods, and these methods may conflict with each other, leading to biased and compromised results. Another problem is the need to reach a high clarity with the paper: if there are several intended contributions, explaining them clearly can be difficult. Jumping from talking about one contribution to another may be necessary, but this may confuse the reader. It is important to remember that it is the author’s responsibility to demonstrate that the findings are significant and interesting (e.g., Ladik and Stewart, 2008). Confusions should be avoided at all cost.

To conclude, to offer a clear contribution or a finding, it is a good idea to identify early on what kind of a story one wants to tell with their text. Following the recommendations of the IMRaD structure , for instance, all the attention of the paper’s argumentation can then be directed to delivering that message as clearly and convincingly as possible. This helps the readers – evaluators, reviewers, and others – appreciate the work that the author has done.

Acknowledgments

Thanks for Oscar Person for tipping me about Ladik & Stewart’s paper on research continuum.

Bardzell, J. & Bardzell, S. (2011). Pleasure is your birthright: Digitally enabled designer sex toys as a case of third-wave HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011) (pp. 257–266). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978979

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101.   https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Gewin, V. (2018). The write stuff: How to produce a first-class paper that will get published, stand out from the crowd and pull in plenty of readers. Nature, Vol. 555, pp. 129-130. Available at:  https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-02404-4/d41586-018-02404-4.pdf.  Also available, with a different title, at  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02404-4  (retrieved 11 November 2020).

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies , 25 (5), 427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

Gould, J. D., Conti, J., & Hovanyecz, T. (1983). Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Communications of the ACM , 26 (4), 295–308.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.358100

Gustafson, S., Baudisch, P., Gutwin, C., & Irani, P. (2008). Wedge: Clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008) (pp. 787–796). New York, NY: ACM Press.. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357179

Hardaker, C. (2013). “Uh….not to be nitpicky,,,, but…the past tense of drag is dragged, not drug.” – An overview of trolling strategies. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict , 1 (1), 58–86.   https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.1.1.04har

Ladik, D. M. & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 36 , 157–165.   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0087-z

Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2000) (pp. 79–88). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.358975

Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., & Kuorelahti, J. (2005). Interaction in 4-second bursts: The fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005) (pp. 919–928). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055101

Oulasvirta, A. & Hornbæk, K. (2016). HCI research as problem-solving. In J. Kaye, A. Druin, C. Lampe, D. Morris, & J. P. Hourcade (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI 2016) (pp. 4956–4967). New York, NY: ACM Press.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858283

Pirolli, P. & Card, S. (1995). Information foraging in information access environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1995) (pp. 51–58). New York, NY: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.  https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223911

Salovaara, A., Upreti, B. R., Nykänen, J. I., & Merikivi, J. (2020). Building on shaky foundations? Lack of falsification and knowledge contestation in IS theories, methods, and practices. European Journal of Information Systems , 29 (1), 65–83.   https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1685737

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine Communication . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Todi, K., Weir, D., & Oulasvirta, A. (2016). Sketchplore: Sketch and explore with a layout optimiser. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (CHI 2016) (pp. 543–555). New York, NY: ACM Press.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901817

Torenvliet, G. (2003). We can’t afford it! The devaluation of a usability term. Interactions , 10 (4), 12–17.   https://doi.org/10.1145/838830.838857

Wobbrock, J. O. (2012). Seven Research Contributions in HCI . The Information School, DUB Group, University of Washington.   http://faculty.washington.edu/wobbrock/pubs/Wobbrock-2012.pdf  (retrieved 12 November 2020).

Wobbrock, J. O. & Kientz, J. A. (2016). Research contributions in human–computer interaction. Interactions  (May–June), 38–44.   https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069

2 thoughts on “ Typology of possible research findings (i.e., “contributions”) ”

Pingback: From table of contents to a finished text | Writing about Design

Pingback: Co wnosi mój artykuł? O rodzajach wkładów do literatury – Akademickie Pisanie

Comments are closed.

Authorship and the importance of the author contribution statement

• Published: 31 March 2023
• Volume 42 , pages 655–656, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• C. Neal Stewart Jr 1 &
• Gűnther Hahne 2  

7821 Accesses

3 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Scientists universally agree that scientific articles and authorship are critically important. Ethical guidelines have been established for best practices and transparency in authorship. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon to see significant errors in authorship practices in published papers. The purpose of this article is to clarify whose names should be listed as authors on a Plant Cell Reports paper and to give some practical guidelines when writing the authorship contribution statement.

In short, the corresponding author and the team of authors are responsible to avoid two critical potential errors in authorship. The first type of error happens when a person who made key contributions to a study and manuscript is not named as an author: someone is inadvertently omitted from the author list. The second type of error happens when a person who did not make a substantial contribution is listed as an author: people are unnecessarily added to the author list. This second type of error occurs when favors are granted to people (gift authorship) or senior scientists, administrators, or famous scientists are granted authorship (honorary authorship). Both types of errors, but especially gift and honorary authorship, could conceivably warrant the rejection of a submitted manuscript.

For many years, Plant Cell Reports has adhered to authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html ).

In short, the four ICMJE criteria for authorship are:

Substantial contributions

Conception/design of the research or

Collection of data or

Data analysis/interpretation AND

Drafting the manuscript or making intellectual contributions on text/revisions AND

Final approval of the manuscript AND

Agreeing to be held accountable for the work.

Please note that accountability is an important concept in science that is a point of emphasis these days as research misconduct appears to be on the rise. It is critical that scientists be aware of the importance of research integrity from the lab bench to publication. Not only should the content of a scientific research paper be accurate, but the author list should be accurate as well.

The authorship contribution statement plays an important role in authorship and accountability. Ideally, the statement should be able to be mapped back to the ICMJE criteria. Figure  1 shows a good example of an ICMJE-mapped author contribution statement.

To the left is a fictional author contribution statement that serves here as a model. The statement is sufficiently detailed to paint a picture of each author’s role in the study and manuscript. The statement can also be mapped to the ICMJE criteria for authorship (to the right) as depicted by the arrows

In submissions to the journal, sometimes we see certain words and phrases in authorship contribution statements that do not belong there: assisted, gave advice, provided funding, made coffee, translated to English, and helped are some examples. None of these words or phrases can be found in the ICMJE criteria and should be avoided in authorship contribution statements.

Given that paper mills are known to buy and sell authorship, and that honorary and gift authorship is also problematic and widespread in science, we, the editors, are increasingly wary of very long author lists and vague authorship contribution statements. It should not be challenging for the editors and peer reviewers to determine if authors meet the criteria for authorship. Also, it should be noted that ChatGPT and other large language models do not fit the criteria for authorship and should also not be listed as authors.

Below are additional resources and tips for authorship:

No changes to authorship can be made after acceptance of a manuscript.

Authors might find that the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT; https://credit.niso.org/ ) is useful in thinking about roles of authors and when writing author contribution statements.

For articles that are based primarily on the student’s dissertation or thesis, it is recommended that the student is listed as the first author.

Authors are asked to use their Open Researcher and Contributor ID (OCRID; https://ocrid.org ) when submitting manuscripts to Plant Cell Reports. If authors don’t have an ID yet, it can be acquired during the submission process.

If authors become deceased or incapacitated during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the co-authors agree that it is appropriate to include the deceased or incapacitated person as an author, co-authors should obtain approval from a (legal) representative, which may be a direct relative of the deceased or incapacitated contributor.

In conclusion, most submissions to Plant Cell Reports are in good faith and appear to be honest in content and intent. We scientists must be vigilant, however, to guard our scientific pursuits and outputs for the benefit of the profession and society. The leadership of Plant Cell Reports remains dedicated to these pursuits, which include assessing the veracity and appropriateness of authorship lists and contribution statements.

Data availability

There are no data available.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

C. Neal Stewart Jr

Plant Cell Reports, Weinheim, Germany

Gűnther Hahne

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Neal Stewart Jr .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Stewart Jr, C.N., Hahne, G. Authorship and the importance of the author contribution statement. Plant Cell Rep 42 , 655–656 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03007-8

Download citation

Received : 17 March 2023

Accepted : 17 March 2023

Published : 31 March 2023

Issue Date : April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03007-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

How to Write an “Implications of Research” Section

4-minute read

• 24th October 2022

When writing research papers , theses, journal articles, or dissertations, one cannot ignore the importance of research. You’re not only the writer of your paper but also the researcher ! Moreover, it’s not just about researching your topic, filling your paper with abundant citations, and topping it off with a reference list. You need to dig deep into your research and provide related literature on your topic. You must also discuss the implications of your research.

Interested in learning more about implications of research? Read on! This post will define these implications, why they’re essential, and most importantly, how to write them. If you’re a visual learner, you might enjoy this video .

What Are Implications of Research?

Implications are potential questions from your research that justify further exploration. They state how your research findings could affect policies, theories, and/or practices.

Implications can either be practical or theoretical. The former is the direct impact of your findings on related practices, whereas the latter is the impact on the theories you have chosen in your study.

Example of a practical implication: If you’re researching a teaching method, the implication would be how teachers can use that method based on your findings.

Example of a theoretical implication: You added a new variable to Theory A so that it could cover a broader perspective.

Finally, implications aren’t the same as recommendations, and it’s important to know the difference between them .

Questions you should consider when developing the implications section:

●  What is the significance of your findings?

●  How do the findings of your study fit with or contradict existing research on this topic?

●  Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support them, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge them, why do you think that is?

Why Are Implications Important?

You need implications for the following reasons:

● To reflect on what you set out to accomplish in the first place

● To see if there’s a change to the initial perspective, now that you’ve collected the data

● To inform your audience, who might be curious about the impact of your research

How to Write an Implications Section

Usually, you write your research implications in the discussion section of your paper. This is the section before the conclusion when you discuss all the hard work you did. Additionally, you’ll write the implications section before making recommendations for future research.

Implications should begin with what you discovered in your study, which differs from what previous studies found, and then you can discuss the implications of your findings.

Your implications need to be specific, meaning you should show the exact contributions of your research and why they’re essential. They should also begin with a specific sentence structure.

Examples of starting implication sentences:

●  These results build on existing evidence of…

●  These findings suggest that…

●  These results should be considered when…

●  While previous research has focused on x , these results show that y …

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

You should write your implications after you’ve stated the results of your research. In other words, summarize your findings and put them into context.

The result : One study found that young learners enjoy short activities when learning a foreign language.

The implications : This result suggests that foreign language teachers use short activities when teaching young learners, as they positively affect learning.

 Example 2

The result : One study found that people who listen to calming music just before going to bed sleep better than those who watch TV.

The implications : These findings suggest that listening to calming music aids sleep quality, whereas watching TV does not.

To summarize, remember these key pointers:

●  Implications are the impact of your findings on the field of study.

●  They serve as a reflection of the research you’ve conducted.              

●  They show the specific contributions of your findings and why the audience should care.

●  They can be practical or theoretical.

●  They aren’t the same as recommendations.

●  You write them in the discussion section of the paper.

●  State the results first, and then state their implications.

Are you currently working on a thesis or dissertation? Once you’ve finished your paper (implications included), our proofreading team can help ensure that your spelling, punctuation, and grammar are perfect. Consider submitting a 500-word document for free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and Examples

Research Paper Introduction – Writing Guide and Examples

Table of Contents

Research Paper Introduction

Research paper introduction is the first section of a research paper that provides an overview of the study, its purpose, and the research question (s) or hypothesis (es) being investigated. It typically includes background information about the topic, a review of previous research in the field, and a statement of the research objectives. The introduction is intended to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the research problem, why it is important, and how the study will contribute to existing knowledge in the field. It also sets the tone for the rest of the paper and helps to establish the author’s credibility and expertise on the subject.

How to Write Research Paper Introduction

Writing an introduction for a research paper can be challenging because it sets the tone for the entire paper. Here are some steps to follow to help you write an effective research paper introduction:

• Start with a hook : Begin your introduction with an attention-grabbing statement, a question, or a surprising fact that will make the reader interested in reading further.
• Provide background information: After the hook, provide background information on the topic. This information should give the reader a general idea of what the topic is about and why it is important.
• State the research problem: Clearly state the research problem or question that the paper addresses. This should be done in a concise and straightforward manner.
• State the research objectives: After stating the research problem, clearly state the research objectives. This will give the reader an idea of what the paper aims to achieve.
• Provide a brief overview of the paper: At the end of the introduction, provide a brief overview of the paper. This should include a summary of the main points that will be discussed in the paper.
• Revise and refine: Finally, revise and refine your introduction to ensure that it is clear, concise, and engaging.

Structure of Research Paper Introduction

The following is a typical structure for a research paper introduction:

• Background Information: This section provides an overview of the topic of the research paper, including relevant background information and any previous research that has been done on the topic. It helps to give the reader a sense of the context for the study.
• Problem Statement: This section identifies the specific problem or issue that the research paper is addressing. It should be clear and concise, and it should articulate the gap in knowledge that the study aims to fill.
• Research Question/Hypothesis : This section states the research question or hypothesis that the study aims to answer. It should be specific and focused, and it should clearly connect to the problem statement.
• Significance of the Study: This section explains why the research is important and what the potential implications of the study are. It should highlight the contribution that the research makes to the field.
• Methodology: This section describes the research methods that were used to conduct the study. It should be detailed enough to allow the reader to understand how the study was conducted and to evaluate the validity of the results.
• Organization of the Paper : This section provides a brief overview of the structure of the research paper. It should give the reader a sense of what to expect in each section of the paper.

Research Paper Introduction Examples

Research Paper Introduction Examples could be:

Example 1: In recent years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prevalent in various industries, including healthcare. AI algorithms are being developed to assist with medical diagnoses, treatment recommendations, and patient monitoring. However, as the use of AI in healthcare grows, ethical concerns regarding privacy, bias, and accountability have emerged. This paper aims to explore the ethical implications of AI in healthcare and propose recommendations for addressing these concerns.

Example 2: Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing our planet today. The increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has resulted in rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, and other environmental impacts. In this paper, we will review the scientific evidence on climate change, discuss the potential consequences of inaction, and propose solutions for mitigating its effects.

Example 3: The rise of social media has transformed the way we communicate and interact with each other. While social media platforms offer many benefits, including increased connectivity and access to information, they also present numerous challenges. In this paper, we will examine the impact of social media on mental health, privacy, and democracy, and propose solutions for addressing these issues.

Example 4: The use of renewable energy sources has become increasingly important in the face of climate change and environmental degradation. While renewable energy technologies offer many benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy independence, they also present numerous challenges. In this paper, we will assess the current state of renewable energy technology, discuss the economic and political barriers to its adoption, and propose solutions for promoting the widespread use of renewable energy.

Purpose of Research Paper Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper serves several important purposes, including:

• Providing context: The introduction should give readers a general understanding of the topic, including its background, significance, and relevance to the field.
• Presenting the research question or problem: The introduction should clearly state the research question or problem that the paper aims to address. This helps readers understand the purpose of the study and what the author hopes to accomplish.
• Reviewing the literature: The introduction should summarize the current state of knowledge on the topic, highlighting the gaps and limitations in existing research. This shows readers why the study is important and necessary.
• Outlining the scope and objectives of the study: The introduction should describe the scope and objectives of the study, including what aspects of the topic will be covered, what data will be collected, and what methods will be used.
• Previewing the main findings and conclusions : The introduction should provide a brief overview of the main findings and conclusions that the study will present. This helps readers anticipate what they can expect to learn from the paper.

When to Write Research Paper Introduction

The introduction of a research paper is typically written after the research has been conducted and the data has been analyzed. This is because the introduction should provide an overview of the research problem, the purpose of the study, and the research questions or hypotheses that will be investigated.

Once you have a clear understanding of the research problem and the questions that you want to explore, you can begin to write the introduction. It’s important to keep in mind that the introduction should be written in a way that engages the reader and provides a clear rationale for the study. It should also provide context for the research by reviewing relevant literature and explaining how the study fits into the larger field of research.

Advantages of Research Paper Introduction

The introduction of a research paper has several advantages, including:

• Establishing the purpose of the research: The introduction provides an overview of the research problem, question, or hypothesis, and the objectives of the study. This helps to clarify the purpose of the research and provide a roadmap for the reader to follow.
• Providing background information: The introduction also provides background information on the topic, including a review of relevant literature and research. This helps the reader understand the context of the study and how it fits into the broader field of research.
• Demonstrating the significance of the research: The introduction also explains why the research is important and relevant. This helps the reader understand the value of the study and why it is worth reading.
• Setting expectations: The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the paper and prepares the reader for what is to come. This helps the reader understand what to expect and how to approach the paper.
• Grabbing the reader’s attention: A well-written introduction can grab the reader’s attention and make them interested in reading further. This is important because it can help to keep the reader engaged and motivated to read the rest of the paper.
• Creating a strong first impression: The introduction is the first part of the research paper that the reader will see, and it can create a strong first impression. A well-written introduction can make the reader more likely to take the research seriously and view it as credible.
• Establishing the author’s credibility: The introduction can also establish the author’s credibility as a researcher. By providing a clear and thorough overview of the research problem and relevant literature, the author can demonstrate their expertise and knowledge in the field.
• Providing a structure for the paper: The introduction can also provide a structure for the rest of the paper. By outlining the main sections and sub-sections of the paper, the introduction can help the reader navigate the paper and find the information they are looking for.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Scope of the Research – Writing Guide and...

How to Publish a Research Paper – Step by Step...

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Title Page – Example and Making...

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 8. The Discussion
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explains how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Annesley, Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Peacock, Matthew. “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (December 2002): 479-497.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
• Presents the underlying meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research;
• Highlights the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the field of study;
• Presents how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described; and,
• Engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results and why they are important. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings presented in the results section.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study could not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [as opposed to offering suggestions in the conclusion of your paper]. Although your study can offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight hidden issues that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results, to support the significance of a finding, and/or to place a finding within a particular context. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74 (June 2013): 1599-1602; Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012; Summary: Using it Wisely. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Over-Interpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

MacCoun, Robert J. "Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (February 1998): 259-287; Ward, Paulet al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Expertise . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.

Azar, Beth. "Discussing Your Findings."  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006).

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand your discussion of the results in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your effort to interpret the data in relation to the research problem.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing

Alex O. Holcombe

1 School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Marton Kovacs

2 Institute of Psychology, ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Frederik Aust

3 University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

4 University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Balazs Aczel

Associated data.

The source code is archived at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3993411 .

Scholars traditionally receive career credit for a paper based on where in the author list they appear, but position in an author list often carries little information about what the contribution of each researcher was. “Contributorship” refers to a movement to formally document the nature of each researcher’s contribution to a project. We discuss the emerging CRediT standard for documenting contributions and describe a web-based app and R package called tenzing that is designed to facilitate its use. tenzing can make it easier for researchers on a project to plan and record their planned contributions and to document those contributions in a journal article.

Introduction

Scholarly journal articles evolved from letters penned by individuals reporting scientific observations or experiment results. These letters listed only a single author, and it was clear that that person was claiming credit for all aspects of the work reported.

Today, over three hundred years later, most science is done by groups of people, not by lone individuals [ 1 ]. Different members of the team usually have different roles. Yet until recently, journals still operated as if there was no need to provide any information other than a list of names—the author list. Some information could be tentatively inferred from the order of names in the list, but how order is determined reflects often-unwritten practices around authorship that can be obscure to people outside a subfield and can differ substantially between labs [ 2 ].

When uncertain, people fall back on their prior beliefs. This is unfortunate for junior authors who do not have many papers to their name: when people see a list of authors with no explicit indication of who did what, they may give an outsize amount of credit to the senior author.

Fortunately, over the last few decades, many journals have begun to encourage, and some to require, that teams give some indication of who did what in the work reported by a paper. In some journals, this is done in a brief “Author Note” or “Author Information” section [e.g., 3 ]. Thanks to this development, researchers are more likely to get the specific recognition they deserve.

The included information would ideally be utilized by funders of scientists to allocate resources more effectively, so that teams with the right combination of skills would more often be supported. Moreover, those who hire scientists, such as universities and research institutes, should be able to assemble more effective teams for particular disciplines and projects.

Unfortunately, these potential benefits have been held back by a lack of standardization. Without a consistent vocabulary for describing what each researcher did in a project, and without a structured format for that information, it is difficult to aggregate across papers the type of contributions a researcher makes. For institutions and funders interested in supporting the right combinations of people, it is difficult to tally the sorts of contributions typically involved in different sorts of projects.

This issue is also faced by business and industry, where some solutions were devised. For commercial music for example, the recording industry uses an International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC). This contains metadata for musical works that provide the identities of contributors and indicates whether they served the roles of, for example, composer, lyricist, or arranger [ 4 , 5 ]. A search of the associated ISWC database allows people to find the works that a musician has contributed to and what their role was in each work ( http://iswcnet.cisac.org/ ).

In scientific research, roles may not be as clear cut as typical in the music industry. Nonetheless, useful distinctions can be made, such as contributions to the analysis of data versus to the drafting of a manuscript, or to the acquisition of data.

In 2014, the first formal taxonomy was developed for scientific research—CRediT, the Contributor Role Taxonomy [ 6 ]. CRediT defines fourteen different types of contributions ( Table 1 ), and over the last several years, it has been taken up by hundreds of journals [ 7 ] and dozens of publishers (see http://credit.niso.org/adopters/ ) and been endorsed by a number of journal editors [ 8 ].

The use of CRediT not only can provide better documentation of the contributions of individual researchers, but also it enables meta-scientific research, such as into the different distribution of contributions indicated for women and men [ 9 ].

To facilitate researcher reporting of contributorship information in manuscripts and journal articles, we created tenzing , a web app and R package [ 10 ] for researchers and publishers. In the following, we will review how journals are currently using and reporting CRediT information. We then explain how tenzing can facilitate researcher and journal use of CRediT. Finally, we describe broader issues associated with CRediT contributorship that should be addressed as fields move forward with the usage of contributorship.

How publishers are using CRediT

The CRediT standard includes a specification for how to report contributorship information in the metadata that is associated with manuscript webpages (JATS-XML). But many publishers do not yet have the capability to do this. For example, it appears that none of the organizations behind preprint servers currently create CRediT metadata in JATS-XML format. In such cases, it can be useful for researchers to publish CRediT information in plain text in their manuscripts. Many journals make no mention of CRediT but ask researchers to indicate what each author did in the “Author Note” or similar section of the manuscript. Researchers can use CRediT to do this, in their preprints and in their submitted manuscripts.

An increasing number of scientific journals offer authors forms to indicate which CRediT category each author contributed to. For example, in the submission interface of eLife , authors encounter an array of checkboxes to indicate which category each author contributed to ( Fig 1 ).

PLOS journals provide a similar facility ( Fig 2 ), as do over 1200 Elsevier journals ( https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-expands-credit-approach-to-authorship ).

It appears when one is asked to enter information about each author.

Many authors encounter the CRediT roles for the first time when they are submitting to a journal. Or even if an author has used CRediT for a previous paper, they may be unlikely to explicitly consider these roles for a new paper until the time of journal submission. From multiple perspectives, not considering contributor roles until the time of submission is not ideal.

By the time an author submits a manuscript, the associated research project sometimes was completed months or even years before. At the time of journal submission, memory of each collaborator’s contributions may be fuzzy. Ideally, authors will arrive at a consensus regarding who did what. But even if memories and records are adequate for this task, establishing such a consensus necessitates interruption of the submission of the manuscript until the submitting author hears from all the other authors and works to resolve any disagreement about various contributions, such as who contributed to the original draft of the manuscript.

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that, when not discussed until after project completion, the rate of disagreement regarding author contributions may be high. Surveys suggest that between between a third and two-thirds of researchers have been involved in authorship disagreements [ 11 – 14 ]. In many fields, the submitting author is often the most junior author. This is typically the case when a PhD student submits her first paper, for example. Yet a student or other junior author is not in the best position to arbitrate disputes or push back on project contributors who may be overclaiming regarding their contribution [ 15 ]. For this and other reasons, there are many recommendations that authors communicate more about authorship expectations and roles, and that they should do so at the beginning of a project [ 16 – 19 ]. This may be even more important when the manuscript is to provide not only a list of author names, but also a specification of each author’s contributions.

Most authorship disputes are settled informally, but still may leave some people bitter at being excluded, or resentful that some people were included on an authorship list without any evidence they deserved it. The same likely applies to disputes over which contribution categories a researcher contributed to. It is probably best to get some agreement on these at the beginning of a project, so that researchers can proceed with some confidence around both what they are expected to do and what kind of credit they will get for it.

To facilitate project and credit attribution planning, an “authorship grid” system was described by Philippi et al. [ 20 ]. Each row of the grid is a task category or high-level responsibility associated with the project, and the columns are the researchers. At the intersection of the rows and columns, researchers indicate the more specific tasks they plan to perform, if any, in that category. This approach is likely very useful for complex projects. For CRediT-using journals, this needs to be translated into CRediT information, which tenzing can facilitate.

How tenzing helps authors use CRediT

tenzing is a web app and associated R package that allows researchers to record contributorship information at any time, for eventual provision to a journal. The app is named after the mountaineer Tenzing Norgay, who together with Edmund Hillary was the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest. Norgay arguably received less credit than was appropriate given his contribution.

Here we will describe the use of tenzing solely in terms of the web app ( https://martonbalazskovacs.shinyapps.io/tenzing/ ), although one can also use it via the underlying R package ( https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing )—full documentation for tenzing can be found online at https://marton-balazs-kovacs.github.io/tenzing/ .

Use of tenzing starts with a spreadsheet template (provided as a Google Sheet, http://bit.ly/tenzingTemplate , but one can also use it in any spreadsheet editor, such as Excel). For a given research project, researchers make a copy of the template and then, in the rows, enter the names of their collaborators ( Fig 3 ). One column is dedicated to each of the fourteen CRediT categories, to be checked off to indicate which categories each researcher contributed to. Because some CRediT categories are not entirely self-explanatory, one can hover the cursor over the column names to see some additional defining information.

Around the time of the start of a project, a lead researcher may choose to send the link to the Sheet to all those involved, who can then indicate the areas they plan to contribute to. At the end of the project, or when plans change during the project, this Sheet can be revisited. Google Sheet services track the changes made in the template, thus by visiting the version history one can review the evolution of contributorship roles throughout the project.

When the researchers are ready to submit to a journal, they upload their filled-out spreadsheet to the tenzing app. They can then click a button to generate any of various outputs.

For CRediT, tenzing outputs a brief report in the form of a list indicating which contributor did what ( Fig 4 ). This can be pasted into the section known at some journals as the Author Note. It is particularly appropriate for journals whose publishing platform does not support the machine-readable CRediT metadata. For example, the journal Collabra : Psychology encourages researchers to provide CRediT information in the “Author Contributions” section, because their publisher has not yet implemented creation of CRediT metadata in the article contents.

The publishing platforms used by dozens of publishers can include CRediT metadata in JATS-XML-format in the journal article webpages (see http://credit.niso.org/implementing-credit/ ). tenzing can generate this JATS-XML information itself for users to download ( Fig 5 ). Ideally, researchers would be able to upload this to a journal submission portal when submitting their manuscript, obviating the need to fill in arrays of checkboxes for each contributor. Unfortunately, at present no journal is capable of processing the uploaded JATS-XML, although a few publishers have privately indicated that they’re interested in adding support for this.

Some researchers write manuscripts in R Markdown and use the papaja package [ 21 ] to generate manuscripts in APA format for submission to a journal. tenzing generates author metadata in YAML-format, which can be included in the R Markdown file. papaja then includes the CRediT information in the Author Note section of the APA-formatted manuscript.

The current user interface for tenzing is shown in Fig 6 , although its design is likely to evolve–a usability study is presently underway.

The bottom portion of both sides describes the four outputs that tenzing provides.

An additional output provided by tenzing is unrelated to CRediT: a list of the authors’ names, with annotations indicating the institutions they are affiliated with, formatted to be suitable to paste into the title page of a manuscript file ( Fig 7 ). For manuscripts with large numbers of authors, this can substantially reduce the time required to create the title page.

The current version of tenzing has various limitations, such as only allowing entry of one affiliation per author. Addressing this and a few other features is currently planned, with updates regarding progress available at the development site ( https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing/issues ). User interface professionals have provided some suggestions, which will likely result in improvements to the app’s design and usability. tenzing is open source [ 10 ], and researchers and other community members are invited to contribute to tenzing development by posting feature requests and bug reports at the Github issues page ( https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing/issues ) or by contacting the corresponding author.

The future of CRediT

The CRediT standard was primarily designed to allow researchers to indicate what type of contribution they made. However, it also has a facility that allows one to indicate the degree of contribution. Specifically, one can optionally indicate whether each contributor to a particular category played a “lead”, “equal”, or “supporting” role in the associated work. It appears that most journals that use CRediT have opted not to use this feature, at least not yet. Editorial Manager, a journal platform used by thousands of journals, has integrated the degree of contribution feature but as a specific configuration, and most journals using Editorial Manager currently do not appear to have activated it.

An unresolved issue with CRediT’s degree of contribution facet is how it should be used. It seems likely that if the “equal” degree is used, it must be used for multiple co-authors as it may not make sense when applied to just one. This is not currently addressed, however, by the CRediT documentation, nor are other possible constraints such as whether “equal” can be used as an intermediate indicator in cases where there are already authors with the “lead” and “supporting” labels. In addition, there is no indication to publishers of how they should indicate degrees of contribution in the machine-readable JATS-XML associated with journal articles, although Aries Systems, the creator of Editorial Manager, has done this by using the “specific-use” attribute (Caroline Webber, personal communication, 8 July 2020).

The degree of contribution under-specification is one of the issues that will likely be addressed by the group convened by the American National Information Standards Organization to formalize CRediT as an ANSI/NISO standard ( https://niso.org/press-releases/2020/04/niso-launches-work-contributor-role-taxonomy-credit-initiative ). For now, we have chosen to not yet implement the degree of contribution feature in tenzing .

The future of contributorship

The number of contributors to the average scientific paper has steadily increased over the last several decades [ 22 , 23 ]. In part, this has occurred because as knowledge in an area increases, specialization facilitates further advances. Some forms of research today, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, are based on bringing together large amounts of evidence from the literature. Library professionals contribute to some such projects with sophisticated searches of papers and databases. For other projects, technicians provide invaluable guidance regarding equipment, programmers create needed software, statisticians provide statistical advice, and informaticists create visualizations or collate information from databases. With science increasingly depending on these tasks getting done, funders need to be able to assess what sorts of projects have most benefited from specialists in order to resource science most effectively. However, people in these specialist roles are often not included in author lists, making it difficult to determine the number of specialists contributing to various projects.

One obstacle to greater inclusion of specialist contributors is the current state of journal authorship guidelines. The authorship guidelines for thousands of journals are based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These guidelines stipulate that only those who contribute to the writing or revising of a manuscript are eligible for authorship [ 24 ]. Journals should consider expanding authorship eligibility, for example by adopting the proposal of McNutt et al. [ 8 ] to eliminate the writing requirement and endorse the use of CRediT [ 25 ].

Some fields, such as genomics, already have a tradition of including groups, often known as consortia, on an author list, without enumeration of individual researcher names. This is often used to indicate those who only contributed data, which is a useful alternative to making that particular distinction with CRediT [ 26 ].

CRediT is not a good fit for all disciplines or even all projects within a discipline [ 27 ]. An ontology of roles that is both broader than those of CRediT and also more specific has been developed by the National Center for Data to Health, an initiative of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health [ 28 ]. The scheme is called the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO, https://data2health.github.io/contributor-role-ontology/ ), and it extends the CRediT ontology to include more than fifty roles, including “specimen collection”, “librarian”, “community engagement”, “coordination”, and “software testing” [ 28 – 30 ]. Given the adoption of CRediT that has already occurred, we anticipate that improvements will occur via extensions or generalizations such as CRO. The CRO scheme could be integrated into tenzing in the future.

If author contributions to a journal’s articles are explicitly indicated by a contributorship taxonomy such as CRediT or CRO, how should one think about the order of authorship? One might expect order to still be used for communicating the relative amount that different authors contributed, despite its limitations due to ambiguity around interpreting the meaning of first author and last author in different fields and cultures. However, note that CRediT also allows an indication of degree of contribution, beyond just how many categories a researcher contributed to. Specifically, where multiple individuals serve in the same role, the degree of contribution can optionally be specified as ‘lead’, ‘equal’, or ‘supporting’, but as described in the previous section, the proper usage of as well as the metadata for this has not yet been fully specified in the CRediT standard.

Deciding on order of authorship may get more and more difficult as the number of authors increases. Having a discussion among the researchers to decide this, without a clear decision process, may be unwieldy. Some have suggested a points system for different types of contributions. The American Psychological Association online authorship resources site for several years has included an example “scorecard” that assigns different types of contributions different numbers of points [ 31 ]. For CRediT, one such points system has been created by Mojtaba Soltanlou [ 32 ]. However, the relative value of different sorts of contributions likely differs across projects.

A critically important document for communicating contributions to scholarship is the CV. Traditionally, the extent of different authors’ contributions is communicated entirely by the order of authorship. In the future, however, we anticipate that funders or individual researchers will move to CVs that communicate the nature of the contributions made to each journal article. The Rescognito site [ 33 ] has created experimental visualizations, as did Ebersole, Adie, & Cook in a SIPS hackathon [ 25 ] with a bar graph indicating, for each CRediT category, how many papers a researcher contributed to.

Another piece of infrastructure already supporting CRediT usage is the ORCiD database and metadata for identifying researchers and linking them to their papers and other scholarly contributions [ 34 ]. Usage has grown rapidly, with over 7,000 papers a month indexed in Crossref because at least one author used ORCiD [ 35 ]. The ORCiD registry includes CRediT information. While tenzing could potentially pull author information such as name, email and affiliation from the ORCiD database rather than requiring manual entry, the selection of the information to import can have complications that require user intervention (for example, one might need to include an old affiliation and not the current one). A prototype shiny app available at https://colomb.shinyapps.io/contributorlist_creator/ facilitates that [ 36 ] and is now compatible with tenzing , as it can be used to create an infosheet one can further complete manually before uploading it into tenzing .

With adoption of CRediT growing rapidly, it is becoming more urgent to attend to any problems being encountered in its use or with the standard itself. The NISO effort to formalize CRediT will include a solicitation of feedback, which will be an important opportunity for the scholarly community to shape how contributorship information is recorded. We hope that the usage of CRediT facilitated by tenzing during the feedback period will result in a greater understanding of what about CRediT should be prioritized for refinement or change.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) and the participants in the 2019 SIPS Hackathon on contributorship [ 25 ] for discussion.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2020; 15(12): e0244611.

Decision Letter 0

PONE-D-20-23271

Dear Dr. Holcombe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript deserves further discussion on specific advantages tenzing has over traditional methods in its aim of finding solutions to the problem of authors' contributions to scientific articles.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 2nd October 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bright Nwaru

Academic Editor

Additional Editor Comments:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: No

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article summarizes advantages and limitations of traditional methods (e.g. “Author Note”, “Author information”) which have been used by scientific journals for many years. Then the authors briefly describe Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) which was developed in 2014. CRediT tool has an advantage over existing methods by being more detailed and structured. CRediT defines 14 different types of author contributions. If this method would be widely adopted by publishers, it could help to provide a better documentation of the contribution of researchers. Finally, the paper presents the new web app and R package (tenzing) which helps to facilitate CRediT tool.

The authors aimed:

1. To revise the current state of how journals use CRediT tool for documentation of author contribution and difficulties associated with the use of CRediT during submission process.

2. To present R package and web app (tenzing) which they developed to overcome these difficulties.

In my opinion, the authors have achieved both aims. The paper summarizes how some journals are currently using new author contribution documentation tool CRediT, and explains difficulties of using it based on illustrative examples. Free web app and R package tenzing, developed by authors, achieves its purpose. Figures included in the paper are very informative and help to understand how tenzing package works.

I find the paper very interesting and I think it would be beneficial to replace traditional author contribution methods by more sophisticated methods such as CRediT in the future.

If the structure of the paper meets the requirements of PLUS ONE journal, then I would suggest accepting the paper.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your manuscript titled "Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing", discussing the CRediT standard and the associated tenzing R package. The issue of authorship or “contributorship” is timely and deserving of more attention, and the development of software packages and web applications is – in my view – an excellent way of raising discussion while also providing a solution. I only have a few minor suggestions that I hope could improve the manuscript, and the app, even further.

Section: The future of contributorship

It would be interesting to see a bit more discussion raised concerning large(r)-scale projects and group authorship vis-à-vis the CRediT guidelines (e.g., Fontanarosa, Bauchner, & Flanagin, 2017; https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2667044 ). Given that assigning the correct role to authors and collaborators has proven to be difficult, is crediting the entire research group as a whole (and thus no individual authors) perhaps a viable alternative? The specific roles (following, e.g., CRediT guidelines) of each author could then be specified on the group’s website, for instance.

Section: The future of CRediT

It is unfortunate that the “lead”, “equal”, and “supporting” specifications are not more widely adopted, and thus not a feature of tenzing. While I understand your reasons, I hope that you may add such a feature in coming releases. Perhaps showing how it can be done in practice will lead to faster adoption?

The tenzing app

I tested the Shiny app (using Firefox) with an edited template file (edited with LibreOffice Calc on Pop_OS! 20.04 Linux, saved as xlsx). All features worked as intended, with one exception. The papaja YAML output fails to retrieve all roles; all roles are stated as "Conceptualization" (see attachments). I had a look at the code and could not find any obvious source for this error (overall, while browsing through the GitHub repo, I found the code to be clean, consistent, and nicely commented).

While the app works well, apart from the above error, I have two feature suggestions that may encourage quicker adoption by users:

(1) Allow users to create a template from scratch within the Shiny app (thus not having to download a template, edit it, and then upload it). It's a minor issue, but it is always nice to avoid having to move from one program to another. This could be done on a separate tab or page, and the final sheet could shown as a datatable, or similar, to allow editing within the browser (similar to the “Show infosheet” feature, but with editing capabilities). A download button would allow users to save the sheet locally, if need be.

(2) It would be helpful to allow for more than two affiliations. Perhaps this could be a dynamic variable?

Formatting errors

• Line 49, missing abbreviation (ISWC) following mention of International Standard Musical Work Code.

• Line 70, CRediT is misspelled as CrediT.

• Line 169, which is misspelled as whichh.

Best of luck,

Carl Delfin

Reviewer #3: The authors describe a very important tool that appears to solve an emerging problem about authorship and contributions to scholarly articles. Their recommended tool is useful, and would help to initiate change in the way in which scientist conduct and report research/outputs.

However, the “CRediT and tenzing” tool in itself does not solve all the problems. For instance, one challenge that has not been well elucidated is how to fairly document the depth of involvement by an author per category. This will help resolve issues where some authors may contribute to a very great depth in just one category, which may surpass the total contributions from other authors who would be checking the boxes in more categories on the CRediT scale.

Reviewer #4: Comments to the authors:

In this report, the authors discussed the issue with authorship position in scientific publications, which can carry little information about the actual contribution of each co-author. Authors briefly review the emerging CRediT standard for documenting contributions and discuss their web app and R package “tenzing” application that facilitates researcher reporting of contributorship information in manuscripts and journal articles. The topic itself is interesting and scientifically relevant, and could be suitable for the scope of the journal. Some minor comments for the authors:

- The manuscript still needs editing and language revision.

- The manuscript lacks some important references, for example, in the “introduction” section and “how journals are using CRediT”.

- The facility of PLoS journals can be provided as a separate figure e.g. Figure 2 (as for eLife)

- Instead of links to external blogs, I recommend authors to provide tables describing different features of CRediT e.g. limitations and applicability.

Reviewer #5: Thank you for allowing me to read this article in which the authors describe the challenges by informing who did what in the project manuscript. Lack of standardization on how to report contributorship in multi-authored published scholarly works is one of the issues. The authors find this to be particularly problematic since researchers indicate contributions late in the process, namely when submitting a manuscript. They suggest that developing a structured format would help, for instance, be more transparent, and give researchers specific recognition.

Authors describe the use of Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), developed in 2014, and widely utilized by scientific journals. Authors created a web-based app tenzing designed to make it easier for researchers to plan and record contributions of each team member. The presentation of tenzing is relatively short. Tenzing is a pre-filled Google Sheet (or Excel) template containing all 14 CRediT categories and rows for entering the collaborator’s information. The authors present tenzing as a component that can be used with an existing system (via the underlying R package). Uploading the spreadsheet to the application enables to generate various outputs. The authors provide pictures where they illustrate the use of tenzing on their project. There is no information if other research groups have tested the application.

I would appreciate having more information on how tenzing is advantageous? In what way is this method more superior to existing ones? Is there any possibility to trace the changes researches make in tenzing?

Many different components of the same problem emerge in most parts of the manuscript, which illustrates how multidimensional the question is. At the same time, it would be clearer if authors were to focus on a limited inquiry, what part of the problem do authors want to solve? Another possible alternative is to choose a different article type.

I find the structure of this article unclear. The authors should clarify the following sections: problem definition, proposed solution, discussion, conclusion.

The main strength of this manuscript is that it addresses a timely question with great potential for improvement. I agree with the authors that there is a need to develop methods and strategies to ensure transparency in the research were contribution plays a significant part. But still, there is an unresolved question regarding what approach would solve the particularly chosen part of the issue.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2:  Yes:  Carl Delfin

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments.docx

Author response to Decision Letter 0

15 Oct 2020

Dear Dr. Nwaru,

We greatly appreciate the five reviews for our manuscript. This provides a lot of value, and not only due to the constructive suggestions - thanks to PLoS’s option for open peer reviews, which we plan to take up, it also provides a public indication of the extent to which our manuscript was vetted and evaluated.

Response to comment by Napsi Szincsak of PLoS ONE

After the action letter, I received an email from Napsi Szincsak asking us to address the fact that PLoS ONE has specific guidelines on software sharing. We had already cited the Github page, where the source code is archived. We have now also added an MIT license ( https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing/blob/master/LICENSE.md ).

Response to “journal requirements” comments

-1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

We have adjusted the title page and believe the rest of the manuscript and files comport with the specified style.

-2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found.

That is correct – this is because there is no underlying data set, as there are no results described in the manuscript.

Response to reviewer 1’s comments

We appreciate that the reviewer believes the manuscript is interesting and that it achieves its aims of reviewing the state of author/contribution issues and presenting the R package and app for improving things.

Response to reviewer 2’s comments

We appreciate the reviewer’s praise for the manuscript as well as the multiple detailed “minor suggestions”.

We agree that group (or consortium, as it is sometimes called) authors is a viable alternative to contributor schemes such as CRediT and use of them has become a strong tradition in some fields, such as genomics. Documenting CRediT information on the group’s website, however, would not be considered a great solution as websites are typically not as permanent as journal article records. We were not aware of the JAMA editorial the reviewer provided, which is helpful, so we have added a paragraph on this with that citation to this section.

Indeed, we do think that this is very important to specify in some projects, see some of our discussion here https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing/issues/15 . As mentioned at the discussion, there is presently no JATS (the underlying machine-readable metadata) specification in CRediT for lead vs. equal vs. supporting, but we expect that the group at the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) presently working on CRediT will address this, which will lead us to move this feature up in the development plan.

I tested the Shiny app… The papaja YAML output fails to retrieve all roles; all roles are stated as "Conceptualization".

This error has since been fixed.

I found the code to be clean, consistent, and nicely commented

We appreciate your gracious comment.

I have two feature suggestions that may encourage quicker adoption by users:

We have been discussing this feature, but implementing spreadsheet functionality within Shiny is currently beyond our programming resources as well as, possibly, the Shiny hosting infrastructure we have access to. However, we have been exploring the feasibility and usability of users entering into Tenzing the Google Doc URL for their contributorship spreadsheet so that users do not need to download and upload a template.

Yes, we have been working on this feature for a while, actually, trying different formats for the interface to avoid creating major usability problems. We hope to have it implemented in the next few months.

• Line 49, missing abbreviation (ISWC) following mention of International Standard Musical Work Code

•Line 70, CRediT is misspelled as CrediT.

Thanks for pointing these out – we have fixed them.

Response to Reviewer 3’s comments

The authors describe a very important tool that appears to solve an emerging problem about authorship and contributions to scholarly articles. Their recommended tool is useful, and would help to initiate change in the way in which scientist conduct and report research/outputs.

Thank you for the positive comments about tenzing.

one challenge that has not been well elucidated is how to fairly document the depth of involvement by an author per category.

We agree that this remains a big challenge. The CRediT standard itself has a way to partially address it, by allowing indication of whether a contributor made a “leading”, “equal”, or “supporting” role, but it is not yet fully implemented by CRediT: There is presently no JATS (the underlying machine-readable metadata) specification in CRediT for lead vs. equal vs. supporting, but we expect that the group at the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) presently working on CRediT will address this, which will likely prompt us to move this feature up in the development plan (see some of our discussion here https://github.com/marton-balazs-kovacs/tenzing/issues/15 ).

Response to Reviewer 4’s comments

The topic itself is interesting and scientifically relevant, and could be suitable for the scope of the journal. Some minor comments for the authors:

Thank you for the positive comments.

We have made many edits to improve the wording, as can be seen in the track changes version.

Thank you for pointing this out - we have now added several references to these sections.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a table describing the basic features of CRediT (Table 1), which also provides some indication of CRediT’s limitations.

Response to Reviewer 5’s comments

I would appreciate having more information on how tenzing is advantageous? In what way is this method more superior to existing ones?

One reason that this aspect of the manuscript may have appeared lacking is because we don’t know of any alternative methods to tenzing, in the sense of an easy to use (no programming) tool to facilitate CRediT reporting. To address the reviewer’s comment, however, we have added more references to somewhat related approaches, and have added a paragraph about “authorship grids” to better explicate the unique utility of tenzing.

Is there any possibility to trace the changes researches make in tenzing?

The researchers enter the contributorship information into a Google Sheet (or they can download that and make changes in a spreadsheet of their choice). Google provides a version history that can be reviewed, for example to understand how contributorship roles evolve during the course of the project.

We tentatively agree that doing nearly a complete rewrite of the manuscript with the structure proposed by the reviewer should make it clearer to some readers. However, given that the other four reviewers did not suggest that a rewrite was necessary, we prefer not to make too many changes that might perturb the manuscript in a way that might make the other reviewers less happy. We also agree that ideally, an argument could be made that tenzing is the optimal way to address the needs of researchers and the interests of science broadly. However, we make no such claim in the manuscript – instead we aimed only to explain some of the issues and that tenzing partially addresses some of them. We think that the limited rewrite that we have done makes that a bit more clear.

Submitted filename: responseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

14 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-23271R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Cassidy R Sugimoto, Ph.D.

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Thank you for addressing each of my concerns and suggestions. I believe that this is an important and valuable study in the move towards more transparent and open research practices. Best of luck in the future!

Reviewer #3: The authors have attempted to address all the issues raised, and justifiably, have done so satisfactorily.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Acceptance letter

21 Dec 2020

Dear Dr. Holcombe:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cassidy R Sugimoto

Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X’s Impactful Contributions

This essay about Malcolm X highlights his transformative from adversity to becoming a prominent civil rights leader. It explores his impactful contributions, including advocacy for black empowerment and self-determination, critique of racial injustice, and establishment of community-building institutions. Malcolm X’s legacy endures through his powerful rhetoric, international activism, and enduring influence on conversations about race and identity. This text underscores his ongoing relevance in contemporary struggles for social justice and equality, inspiring generations to confront systemic oppression and strive for a more inclusive society.

How it works

In the annals of history, few figures loom as large and enigmatic as Malcolm X. Born Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925, his journey from a troubled youth to becoming one of the most influential civil rights leaders of the 20th century is a testament to the transformative power of resilience and conviction. Charting the legacy of Malcolm X necessitates a multifaceted exploration of his impactful contributions, which reverberate through time, shaping conversations on race, justice, and empowerment.

Malcolm X’s early years were marked by adversity and struggle.

Raised in a world marred by racism and violence, he experienced firsthand the indignities of segregation and the crushing weight of systemic oppression. Losing his father to a racist attack and witnessing his mother’s institutionalization deeply scarred him, setting him on a path of rebellion and self-destruction. His formative years were spent in a tumult of crime and incarceration, culminating in a prison sentence that would prove to be the catalyst for his transformation.

It was behind bars that Malcolm X encountered the teachings of the Nation of Islam (NOI) and its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Drawn to the NOI’s message of black empowerment and self-reliance, he underwent a profound spiritual awakening, embracing Islam and shedding his former identity as “Detroit Red.” Emerging from prison as Malcolm X, he became a charismatic spokesperson for the Nation of Islam, captivating audiences with his fiery oratory and uncompromising stance against white supremacy.

Central to Malcolm X’s legacy is his unapologetic advocacy for black liberation and self-determination. Rejecting the nonviolent approach of mainstream civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., he advocated for armed self-defense and denounced integration as a misguided pursuit of assimilation. His provocative rhetoric, epitomized by the phrase “by any means necessary,” challenged conventional notions of black activism, sparking controversy and inciting both admiration and condemnation.

Beyond his confrontational style, Malcolm X’s legacy endures for its profound critique of racial injustice and its call for collective action. He exposed the hypocrisy of American democracy, highlighting the enduring legacy of slavery and the systemic barriers that perpetuated black suffering. His speeches, including the iconic “The Ballot or the Bullet,” resonated with marginalized communities across the nation, galvanizing a new generation of activists and igniting a grassroots movement for change.

Yet, Malcolm X’s contributions transcend the realm of rhetoric. He was a tireless organizer and community builder, establishing institutions like the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) to empower black communities and foster solidarity among oppressed peoples worldwide. His internationalist vision, exemplified by his travels to Africa and the Middle East, underscored the interconnectedness of global struggles against colonialism and imperialism.

Malcolm X’s impact on American society reverberates to this day, permeating the cultural landscape and shaping the discourse on race and identity. His autobiography, co-authored with Alex Haley, remains a seminal text in African American literature, offering a searing account of his life and evolution. His image, immortalized in photographs and artwork, symbolizes resistance and defiance, inspiring successive generations to confront injustice and pursue social change.

Moreover, Malcolm X’s legacy continues to evolve, as new generations reinterpret his message in light of contemporary challenges. In an era marked by renewed calls for racial justice and equity, his critiques of white supremacy and structural inequality resonate with renewed urgency. His emphasis on black pride and self-respect provides a blueprint for navigating the complexities of identity in a society still grappling with its legacy of racism.

In conclusion, charting the legacy of Malcolm X reveals a complex and multifaceted figure whose impact transcends the boundaries of time and space. From his humble beginnings to his meteoric rise as a global icon, his journey embodies the resilience of the human spirit and the power of conviction. His contributions to the struggle for racial equality and social justice endure as a beacon of hope and inspiration, challenging us to confront injustice and build a more inclusive world for future generations.

Cite this page

Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/

"Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/ [Accessed: 5 Jun. 2024]

"Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 5, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/

"Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/. [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Charting the Legacy: Malcolm X's Impactful Contributions . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/charting-the-legacy-malcolm-xs-impactful-contributions/ [Accessed: 5-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

What was Trump found guilty of? See the 34 business records the jury decided he falsified

Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records after prosecutors successfully convinced a jury he disguised hush money reimbursement as legal expenses. He is the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

Each count is tied to a different business record that prosecutors demonstrated Trump is responsible for changing to conceal or commit another crime .

Those records include 11 checks paid to former lawyer Michael Cohen , 11 invoices from Michael Cohen and 12 entries in Trump's ledgers.

The jury found that Trump authorized a plan to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 hush money payment issued to Stormy Daniels and spread the payments across 12 months disguised as legal expenses.

Live updates: Former President Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in hush money case

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Breakdown of 34 counts of falsifying business records

Here are the 34 business records Trump was found guilty of falsifying, as described in Judge Juan Merchan 's jury instructions :

• Count 1: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Feb. 14, 2017
• Count 2: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust dated Feb. 14, 2017
• Count 3: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust dated Feb. 14, 2017
• Count 4: A Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated Feb. 14, 2017
• Count 5: Michael Cohen's invoice dated March 16, 2017
• Count 6: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust dated March 17, 2017
• Count 7: A Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated March 17, 2017
• Count 8: Michael Cohen's invoice dated April 13, 2017
• Count 9: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated June 19, 2017
• Count 10: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated June 19, 2017
• Count 11: Michael Cohen's invoice dated May 22, 2017
• Count 12: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated May 22, 2017
• Count 13: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub May 23, 2017
• Count 14: Michael Cohen's invoice dated June 16, 2017
• Count 15: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated June 19, 2017
• Count 16: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated June 19, 2017
• Count 17: Michael Cohen's invoice dated July 11, 2017
• Count 18: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated July 11, 2017
• Count 19: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated July 11, 2017
• Count 20: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Aug. 1, 2017
• Count 21: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated Aug. 1, 2017
• Count 22: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated Aug. 1, 2017
• Count 23: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Sept. 11, 2017
• Count 24: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated Sept. 11, 2017
• Count 25: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated Sept. 12, 2017
• Count 26: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Oct. 18, 2017
• Count 27: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated Oct. 18, 2017
• Count 28: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated Oct. 18, 2017
• Count 29: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Nov. 20, 2017
• Count 30: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated Nov. 20, 2017
• Count 31: A Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated Nov. 21, 2017
• Count 32: Michael Cohen's invoice dated Dec. 1, 2017
• Count 33: Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump dated Dec. 1, 2017
• Count 34: A check and check stub dated Dec. 5 2017

Jurors saw copies of these records entered as evidence. Evidence from the entire trial is available on the New York Courts website .

Contributing: Aysha Bagchi

• Matters Arising
• Open access
• Published: 03 June 2024

Localized Merkel cell carcinoma treatment considerations: a response to the forty-year experience at the Peter MacCallum cancer centre

• James Leigh 1 &
• Kurt Gebauer 2 , 3  

BMC Cancer volume  24 , Article number:  675 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

The Original Article was published on 07 January 2023

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare but aggressive neuroendocrine tumour of the skin with poor prognosis and rising global incidence. A recently published article in BMC Cancer, titled “Merkel cell carcinoma: a forty-year experience at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre” (Wang et al.), provides a contemporary analysis of locoregional disease outcomes in Australia which highlights the comparative effectiveness of radiotherapy for excisions with involved margins versus wide local excision. There is a persistent lack of clear, well-defined guidelines to manage MCC in Australia despite experiencing the highest rates globally. The advanced age at onset also provides inherent challenges for optimal management and often, a case-by-case approach is necessary based on patient preferences, baseline function and fitness for surgery. This paper responds to the recently published article by Wang et al. and will expand the discourse regarding management of localized MCC. Specifically, we will discuss the surgical excision approaches; alternative treatment options for MCC including radiotherapy, Mohs micrographic surgery and novel immunotherapy agents being investigated through several clinical trials.

Peer Review reports

This journal recently published an article by Wang et al., which describes a forty-year experience at Australia’s Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre managing Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), a highly aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor [ 1 ]. There is ongoing debate regarding management of localized MCC which we will expand upon in this article, including surgical margin considerations, immunotherapy and lessons learned from melanoma treatments.

1. Surgical margin considerations for localized MCC

Surgical margins are an important consideration in MCC management, particularly among elderly patients or those undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Wang et al. conclude that “if treated with adjuvant radiotherapy, there is no difference in overall survival or disease-free survival with positive surgical margins” [ 1 ]. WLE has traditionally been recommended as a primary treatment modality with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) [ 2 ]; however, the findings by Wang et al. challenge this paradigm and aligns with the clinical outcomes which we have observed in our high-volume community dermatology clinic. Globally, guidelines are recognizing alternative first-line treatment modalities for localized MCC including RT, Mohs micrographic surgery and immunotherapy.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed revised guidelines for the management of MCC [ 3 ]. Wang et al. reference the 2021 NCCN guidelines, which recommend 1–2 cm margins as definitive treatment for localized MCC in low-risk cases with absent risk factors (larger primary tumor (> 1 cm); chronic T-cell immunosuppression, HIV, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), solid organ transplant; head/neck primary site; lymphovascular invasion (LVI) present) [ 3 ]. However, an updated version of the NCCN guidelines now exists and instead recommends that “surgical margins should be balanced with morbidity of surgery, with surgical goal of primary tissue closure to avoid undue delay to adjuvant RT” [ 4 ]. Their updated terminology signals a preference for adjuvant RT over clear surgical margins, in the event of delayed RT due to wound healing for WLE. These guidelines also include Mohs micrographic surgery as an option for primary excision, which has recently been recognized as a comparable treatment for localized MCC [ 5 ] but was not acknowledged in Wang et al.’s article. Further research is needed to identify the most effective excision technique which considers the importance of time-sensitive adjuvant radiotherapy, particularly in comorbid or surgically unfit patients more common among the elderly.

2. The role of immunotherapy in localized MCC

Immunotherapy has significantly changed the landscape of systemic treatments for metastatic cancer. Its role in localized cutaneous malignancy is also being increasingly recognized, particularly among melanoma and MCC. Since the publication of the Peter MacCallum forty-year experience managing MCC [ 1 ], the NCCN has updated their guidelines to include immunotherapy for locally recurrent N0 (local) disease if surgery and radiotherapy are not viable treatment options [ 4 ]. The specific immunotherapies include pembrolizumab and retifanlimab-dlwr which are approved for use in America, while avelumab is the approved agent in Australia. Of note, avelumab is only indicated in metastatic disease (stage IV) in Australia at the time of writing; however, the I-MAT study is investigating the efficacy of avelumab for stage I-III MCC [ 2 ]. Existing immunotherapy trials include the ADMEC-O trial (NCT02196961) which is investigating the efficacy of adjuvant nivolumab monotherapy in patients with completely resected MCC [ 6 ]. Other trials include America’s ADAM trial which investigates the efficacy of avelumab for regional disease that has spread to the lymph nodes [ 7 ], and the STAMP clinical trial which investigates the efficacy of adjuvant pembrolizumab after surgery for stage I-III disease [ 8 ].

Adjuvant immunotherapy presents a viable alternative treatment in patients who are unfit for major surgery and with logistical barriers to RT, often delivered over 20–30 separate sessions. In our experience, a sizeable cohort of MCC patients are considered unfit for major surgery due to their advanced age at diagnosis, poor mobility and comorbidities. Furthermore, several of our patients declined RT due to difficulty with transportation particularly among elderly patients with mobility difficulties. Although immunotherapy can be very costly and cause unwanted side effects, it may be an appropriate treatment option in patients with MCC who are not amenable to WLE or RT, given the rarity of this cancer and demonstrated benefit in systemic disease. Effective patient selection for immunotherapy is important to maximize benefit considering both high costs and toxicity profiles associated with treatment. This is evident in countries such as Norway where immunotherapy is not considered cost-effective [ 9 ]. Furthermore, immunotherapy may provide benefit in non-surgical patients where sentinel lymph node biopsy is not possible.

3. Lessons learned from melanoma

Melanoma treatments have rapidly advanced in the past decade, and several findings may be translatable to the management of MCC from a surgical and medical perspective. Immunotherapy provides significant patient benefits, including improved disease-free survival and overall survival. Given the high metastatic potential among patients with invasive melanoma, patients are now being considered for immunotherapy even in localized disease. Indeed, a recent study by Eggermont et al. (KEYNOTE-716) demonstrated the benefits of adjuvant pembrolizumab for preventing disease recurrence or death in stage IIa and IIb melanoma after excision [ 10 ]. As we have described, there is comparable MCC research relating to adjuvant immunotherapy through the STAMP trial which is due for completion in 2025 [ 8 ].

On a surgical front, the MelMarT-II trial is investigating the clinical outcomes of 1 cm vs. 2 cm margins for patients with localized melanoma [ 11 ]. Wide local excision has long been considered the gold-standard surgical treatment for melanoma and Merkel cell carcinoma; however, this surgical approach is being reconsidered to minimize unnecessarily wide margins and associated complications. Conducting an equivalent randomized controlled trial for the surgical management of MCC presents a challenge due to its relative rarity. However, the outcomes of MelMarT-II should be contextualized to MCC including the cost-effectiveness of WLE and patient quality of life implications after surgery.

Merkel cell carcinoma is a highly aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Although rare, it most commonly affects elderly patients, many of whom have comorbidities that may limit treatment options including WLE or RT. Wang et al. provide an important and contemporary description of their forty-year experience in managing MCC in Australia, a country with the highest incidence of MCC globally. WLE may not be the best treatment option for all patients, and clinicians should be aware of the various treatment options which exist for localized MCC. These include WLE and sentinel lymph node biopsy with or without adjuvant RT; Mohs surgery; isolated RT; and more recently, immunotherapy. Less invasive treatments for MCC do exist and may be favorable among patients with poor functional status or contraindications to surgery. Further prospective research which acknowledges the clinical challenges of advanced age at diagnosis, for example a randomized controlled trial, may augment the evidence for the management of localized MCC among elderly patients.

Data availability

Not Applicable.

Wang AJ, McCann B, Soon WCL, et al. Merkel cell carcinoma: a forty-year experience at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. BMC Cancer. 2023;23:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-10349-1 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kok DL, Wang A, Xu W, et al. The changing paradigm of managing Merkel cell carcinoma in Australia: an expert commentary. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol. 2020;16:312–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13407 .

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Merkel cell carcinoma, version 1. 2021. https://merkelcell.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/NCCN-2021.pdf . Accessed 04 Oct 2023.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Merkel Cell Carcinoma, version 1. 2023. https://merkelcell.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NCCN-Guidelines-for-Merkel-Cell-Carcinoma-v1.2023.pdf . Accessed 04 Oct 2023.

Moore KJ, Thakuria M, Ruiz ES. No difference in survival for primary cutaneous Merkel cell carcinoma after Mohs micrographic surgery in wide local excision. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89(2):254–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2023.04.042 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Becker J, Ugurel S, Leiter U, Meier F, Gutzmer R, Haferkamp S, et al. Adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab versus observation in completely resected Merkel cell carcinoma (ADMEC-O): disease-free survival results from a randomized, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2023;402:798–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00769-9 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bhatia S, Brohl AS, Brownell I, Chandra S, Dakhil S, Ernstoff MS, et al. ADAM trial: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of adjuvant avelumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) in Merkel cell carcinoma patients with clinically detected lymph note metastases; NCT03271372. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15 Suppl):TPS9605–9605. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.TPS9605 .

Article   Google Scholar  

U.S National Library of Medicine. Testing Pembrolizumab Versus Observation in Patients with Merkel Cell Carcinoma After Surgery, STAMP Study. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03712605 . Accessed 04 Oct 2023.

Pike E, Hamidi V, Saeterdal I, Odgaard-Jensen J, Klemp M. Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e014880. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014880 .

Luke J, Rotukowski P, Queirolo P, Del Vecchio M, Mackieqicz J, Chiarion-Sileni V, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in completely resected stage IIB or IIC melanoma (KEYNOTE-716): a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:1718–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00562-1 .

University of Oxford Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences. The MelMarT-II trial. https://www.nds.ox.ac.uk/research/surgical-intervention-trials-unit/the-melmart-ii-trial . Accessed 06 Oct 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Associate Professor David Kok and his research team for their valuable paper titled “Merkel cell carcinoma: a forty-year experience at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre”. A/Prof Kok has endorsed our development and submission of this article in response to his paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

James Leigh

Fremantle Dermatology, Fremantle, Australia

Kurt Gebauer

University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.L wrote the main manuscript text. K.G provided edits necessary for manuscript submission.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Leigh, J., Gebauer, K. Localized Merkel cell carcinoma treatment considerations: a response to the forty-year experience at the Peter MacCallum cancer centre. BMC Cancer 24 , 675 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12443-y

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2023

Accepted : 28 May 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12443-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Carcinoma, Merkel Cell
• Skin Neoplasms
• Radiation Oncology
• Neuroendocrine Tumour

ISSN: 1471-2407

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

FinancialResearch.gov

Conferences, 2024 financial stability conference – call for papers.

Published: June 4, 2024

Share on Facebook Share on Linked In Logo for Twitter

The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and the Office of Financial Research invite the submission of research and policy-oriented papers for the 2024 Financial Stability Conference on November 21–22, 2024. The conference will be held in person in Cleveland, Ohio, and virtually.

Markets and institutions, increasingly interconnected, are being challenged by the dizzying pace of changes in the financial system, accelerating the buildup of risk and threats to solvency. Regulatory adaptations add another layer of complexity to the issue. Increasingly sophisticated algorithms and the rise of generative artificial intelligence may create new vulnerabilities across the system as banks, nonbank financial institutions, and financial markets exploit nascent opportunities. The twelfth annual conference will explore how firms and markets can become resilient or even antifragile and how regulators can encourage and accommodate needed changes.

Conference Format

The conference will bring together policymakers, market participants, and researchers in two types of sessions:

• Policy Discussions These sessions include keynote addresses and panel discussions in which participants from industry, regulatory agencies, and academia share their insights.
• Research Forums These forums follow the format of an academic workshop and comprise sessions to discuss submitted papers.

We welcome submissions of research on topics related to potential financial stability risks faced by financial markets and institutions, sources of financial system resilience, and related public policy. Conference topics include but are not limited to the following:

Emerging Risks

As the financial system continues to evolve, new risks emerge along with new businesses, new strategies, and new technologies. Old problems take on new dimensions as fiscal and monetary policies adapt to new economic and political realities, thereby adding new stresses to regulatory frameworks that themselves struggle to adapt. As information technology moves risk out of closely regulated sectors, it also creates new vulnerabilities from cyber-attacks. A rapidly changing physical environment and the prospect of nonhuman intelligences add even more uncertainty.

• Financial stability concerns related to faster payments and equity transactions such as the implementation of t+1 settlement
• The financial stability implications of generative AI and deep learning
• Cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, and blockchain
• Cyber-attacks
• Climate risk
• Interaction of monetary policy with macroprudential supervision
• Sources of resilience in the financial sector

Financial Institutions

A riskier macroeconomic environment poses challenges for financial institutions and their supervisors. Risk management tools and strategies will be tested by fluctuations in inflation and output and by new regulations designed to mitigate vulnerabilities. Network effects, including interactions with a rapidly evolving fintech and crypto sector, may lead to further risks at a systemic level. How are institutions adapting to these risks and associated regulatory changes? How prepared are regulators and policymakers? Are existing microprudential and macroprudential toolkits sufficient?

• Bank lending to nonbank financial institutions (NBFI)
• Insurance markets
• Banking as a service (BaaS)
• Regional banks
• Interest rate risk
• Risks of rapid growth
• Unrealized losses on balance sheets and mark-to-market accounting
• Impact of reforms to lenders of last resort, deposit Insurance, capital rules, and the FHLB system

Financial Markets

Inflation and the associated responses of central banks around the world have contributed to stress to financial markets that has not been seen in the recent past. Financial stability threats may arise from resulting reallocations through volatility spikes, fire sales, and financial contagion. The continued development of algorithms, decentralized finance (DeFi), and complex artificial intelligence has the potential to add novel risks to financial markets. To what extent do investors recognize these risks, and how does recognition affect investors’ allocations? How does opacity resulting from deficiencies in reporting, risk management, and operation standards for these risks affect investor behavior?

• Risks associated with high levels and issuance of public debt (for example, recent volatility around Treasury funding announcements, concerns about primary dealers and principal trading firms, the SEC’s recent rule about what defines a dealer and what that might mean for Treasury markets)
• Short-term funding
• Implications of deficits, central bank balance sheet policies, and financial stability
• The impact of technological innovation on financial markets

Real Estate Markets

Real estate is often one of the sectors most affected by and can be a cause of financial instability. Construction and housing play a major role in the transmission of monetary policy, and real estate-based lending remains a major activity of banks, insurance companies, and mortgage companies. A complex and active securities market ties together financial institutions and markets in both residential and commercial real estate.

• Commercial real estate (CRE)
• Nonbank originators and servicers
• International contagion
• Implications of remote work and the impact of COVID-19
• Effects of monetary policy on real estate markets

Scientific Committee

• Vikas Agarwal, Georgia State University
• Marco Di Maggio, Harvard University
• Michael Fleming, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
• Rod Garratt, University of California, Santa Barbara
• Mariassunta Giannetti, Stockholm School of Economics
• Arpit Gupta, New York University, Stern School of Business
• Zhiguo He, Stanford University
• Zhaogang Song, Johns Hopkins University
• Russell R. Wermers, Robert H. Smith School of Business, The University of Maryland at College Park

Paper Submission Procedure

The deadline for submissions is Friday, July 5, 2024. Please submit completed papers through Conference Maker . Notification of acceptance will be provided by Friday, September 6, 2024. Final conference papers are due on Friday, November 1, 2024. In-person paper presentations are preferred. Questions should be directed to [email protected] .

Back to Conferences

You are now leaving the OFR’s website.

You will be redirected to:

You are now leaving the OFR Website. The website associated with the link you have selected is located on another server and is not subject to Federal information quality, privacy, security, and related guidelines. To remain on the OFR Website, click 'Cancel'. To continue to the other website you selected, click 'Proceed'. The OFR does not endorse this other website, its sponsor, or any of the views, activities, products, or services offered on the website or by any advertiser on the website.

Thank you for visiting www.financialresearch.gov.