There was a point in time where an author contribution statement informed you who did what.

I've blacked out each author name here (it's not their fault) - but the bland nature of each of the categories in the #CRediT taxonomy is

(1) If we are going to do the #CRediT taxonomy, lets just tabulate the taxonomy & make it the checkbox exercise it is.
(2) Lets not do this, and instead think about what we want an author statement to do and help us understand who did what in the paper, in favour of the authors.

I appreciate some sensitivities - the taxonomy now makes it clear about who is on a paper just because they won the funding, or were in the room, or are guest authors on a paper due to politics.

BUT... just because we have #CRediT do you think the power struggle, structural inbalances and abuse in authorship will disappear?

In many ways - #CRediT has opened the flood gates to "I must now be an author because I did Y" - as we haven't really defined, or let communities understand, what each of the categories really means.

The CASRAI project has come up with what each of the #CRediT roles means - but I don't see how these translate into my field and how the cultures (field, institution, and country) will interpret each of the words that are used. https://casrai.org/credit/ 

e.g. there is an authorship category of: "Resources – Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools."

Does this role, in your community, make that person an author?

There are arguments both ways on this - one says we have been taking many people for granted in our system, and #CRediT makes this abundantly clear (e.g. our collective lack of appreciation, or recognition of technicians or early work by masters students).

The other argument goes - what do we mean by an author?

What are people signifying when they put their name on the mast head of an academic paper? What communities does that recognition of ownership matter for? How is that 'status' conferred? How about responsibility?

In many ways - the horse has bolted. Elsevier has signed up (mostly) to make author statements now based upon #CRediT - which is telling in and of itself. Elsevier, and other companies, are data companies. #CRediT makes their data bases more profit friendly.

If you are an author, or on an editorial board, ask what decision process or discussion there has been about author contribution statements. My suspicion, though I am happy to be corrected, is that very little has happened, and it has been passed down from on high.

Might have to write a blog piece on this .