Contributorship statements have been effective at recording granular author contributions in research articles and have been broadly used to understand how labor is divided across research teams. However, one major limitation in existing empirical studies is that two classification systems have been adopted, especially from its most important data source, journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS). This research aims to address this limitation by developing a mapping scheme between the two systems and using it to understand whether there are differences in the assignment of contribution by authors under the two systems. We use all research articles published in PLoS ONE between 2012 to 2020, divided into two five-year publication windows centered by the shift of the classification systems in 2016. Our results show that most tasks (except for writing- and resource-related tasks) are used similarly under the two systems. Moreover, notable differences between how researchers used the two systems are also examined and discussed. This research offers an important foundation for empirical research on division of labor in the future, by enabling a larger dataset that crosses both, and potentially other, classification systems.

翻译：贡献者声明能够有效记录研究文章中每位作者的精细化贡献，并被广泛用于理解研究团队内部劳动分工情况。然而，现有实证研究存在一个主要局限：特别是在其最重要的数据来源——公共科学图书馆（PLoS）出版的期刊中，采用了两种不同的分类体系。本研究旨在通过构建两套分类体系之间的映射方案，并据此探究作者在这两种体系下分配贡献时是否存在差异，从而弥补这一不足。我们选取了2012年至2020年间发表在PLoS ONE上的所有研究文章，根据2016年分类体系变更的时间节点，将数据集分为两个五年出版窗口。研究结果表明，除写作相关任务和资源相关任务外，多数任务在两套体系下的使用情况相似。此外，我们还考察并讨论了研究人员在使用两套体系时存在的显著差异。本研究通过整合跨越两种分类体系（乃至未来可能出现的其他分类体系）的更大规模数据集，为未来有关劳动分工的实证研究奠定了重要基础。