Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve recommendations on publication credit #2839

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+2 −0
Open

Improve recommendations on publication credit #2839

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
bb6ef70
Improve recommendations on publication credit
mribeirodantas Nov 4, 2024
61cb6f2
Merge branch 'main' into improve-recommendations-publication
mribeirodantas Nov 5, 2024
27c4d2b
Update sites/docs/src/content/docs/guidelines/pipelines/recommendatio…
mribeirodantas Nov 6, 2024
2cba77c
Merge branch 'main' into improve-recommendations-publication
mribeirodantas Nov 6, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion ...ocs/src/content/docs/guidelines/pipelines/recommendations/publication_credit.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ All nf-core pipeline publications and presentations should cite [The nf-core fra

**Optionally**, the nf-core community can be included as a consortium co-author. This option is preferred when a pipeline has made extensive use of existing nf-core pipeline components (e.g., modules and subworkflows) written by other community members who were not directly involved in the pipeline itself. For example, see hgtseq: [A Standard Pipeline to Study Horizontal Gene Transfer](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232314512).

If members of the nf-core community have provided significant input to the creation or maintenance of a pipeline, please consider adding them as coauthors on the pipeline publication or presentation.
If members of the nf-core community have provided significant input to the creation or maintenance of a pipeline, please consider adding them as coauthors on the pipeline publication or presentation. We also recommend transparency on working on a piece where the pipeline is a major part of it. If you plan to write a paper about a pipeline, please share this with the community on the pipeline channel on the nf-core Slack workspace so that other contributors can join your effort.
mribeirodantas marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

If your pipeline publication or presentation is an extension of a community pipeline, please discuss authorship with the main developers.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If your pipeline publication or presentation is an extension of a community pipeline, please discuss authorship with the main developers.
If your pipeline publication or presentation is an extension of a community pipeline, please discuss authorship with the main developers.
Based on [ICMJE's recommendations](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/) for authorship, we developed 4 criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the pipeline; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data used to test/demo the pipeline; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think? @christopher-hakkaart @jfy133 @sateeshperi

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found this link. It expands on the criteria a little. I find the clause about not granting authorship to anyone not involved in the manuscript drafting to be a little strict. I would drop the second bullet point.

Maybe this is a discussion for the next core team meeting? Get lots of eyes on it as this is a reasonably large decision.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Didn't read but might also be worth a skim this

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If your pipeline publication or presentation is an extension of a community pipeline, please discuss authorship with the main developers.
If your pipeline publication or presentation is an extension of a community pipeline, please discuss authorship with the main developers.
Based on [ICMJE's recommendations](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/) for authorship, we suggest you could evaluate inclusion of contributors as a co-author based on the following 4 criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the pipeline; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data used to test/demo the pipeline; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

However I still don't really like this, it's being too proscriptive and I worry about might put people off contributing pipelines to nf-core if they (PIs) are worried about the risk of getting into protracted arguments about authorships or feel that it's no-longer their pipeline and they include the publication with their thesis etc.

Furthmore, it could be someone wants authorship to recognise their contribution, but they don't care about the drafting the actual publication (it's not their job), so the 'AND' is going to make that difficult. Furthermore, someone may not want to be accountable for all aspects of the work if it's some other lab who has done lab work analysis etc. in the publication.

To be clear: conceptually it is nice, but I don't feel we can control this.

We already have problems tracking all developers, if we now have to chase them to make sure they are following

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good point. I guess it all comes back to what constitutes a substantial contribution and how to encourage thoughtful consideration for authorship in different scenarios. Maybe we could give some examples.

Something something something... substantial contribution. For example:

  • Maintenance of xxxx
  • Development of xxxx
  • Or other xxxx

Copy link
Member

@jfy133 jfy133 Nov 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that would work with examples. But ensure the wording is that they are just suggestions to help you decide/evaluate

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jfy133 / @mribeirodantas - shall we apply these suggested changes and then do a final review?


Expand Down
Loading