Add support for role qualifications

[crsh]

I'll summarize our discussion below.

We may want to qualify our roles. Given that this seems important to us, maybe we should implement support for this feature before releasing the app? In terms of how we could implement this in the sheet, I suggest we could turn the tick boxes into a drop-down list to select from (e.g., Lead, Equal, Supporting, None; I just tried this out, it works nicely). This would obviate some of the input validation.

We can also say that if someone does not want to use the more nuanced version they can just set every contributor "equal", as the default choice should be "none" in all cells.

But we should provide help to users about how to decide who is the lead and who is supporting etc.

There are some open questions for the human readable report:

Does this mean that for the reporting of the credit taxonomy we would have the role, then the lead contributor, then the equal contributors, then the supporting? If there are ore contributors saying equal or supporting then they will be organized by the order in publication? What do you think? Should I write the lead and supporting roles in parenthesis after the name?

[marton-balazs-kovacs]

Hi Frederik,

I will change the code according to your last review and then I will start to work on this. Do you think that the way I proposed the change for the human readable report make sense? Because I will code then accordingly.

I think we should add this option before the first release.

[crsh]

I'll give my thoughts one by one.

Does this mean that for the reporting of the credit taxonomy we would have the role, then the lead contributor, then the equal contributors, then the supporting?

Yes, that was my thinking.

If there are ore contributors saying equal or supporting then they will be organized by the order in publication?

That would probably be the easiest way to implement this and it would also make sense, I think.

Should I write the lead and supporting roles in parenthesis after the name?

Either that or we could add superscripts, which may be a little more concise?

[marton-balazs-kovacs]

Hi,

I agree with your third point. It is a good idea to add superscripts.

[jcolomb]

I would not include this in the first release:

1. there is no jats version of that information, I would tend to wait and make some more research about how to include that, are there any example in the literature?
2. I fear it could induce some bad behaviour and fight between the authors, and the time might not be good for that and we need to have people used to credit, before asking them to do more

If you want to go for it anyway, the default value should be "unspecified" and not "equal" in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

[crsh]

Hi Julien, thanks for your comments. I agree with what you are suggesting. It is pretty much what we landed on in another private e-mail discussion.