Ideas for additional manuscripts (comparative part)
Procedure for using BugNet data in additional manuscripts
BugNet welcomes additional ideas to utilise the global dataset for the comparative part and the baseline data of the experimental part (collected before 2023) and encourages collaborators to lead additional manuscripts using these data, in addition to the core ideas and papers of BugNet. In order to facilitate collaboration across the network and to avoid any overlaps in analyses, we ask everyone planning an additional analysis to write a short proposal and send it to the core team. We will then circulate the proposal amongst the whole network, so that everyone is informed of what you are planning and so people can indicate at an early stage that they would like to collaborate on an analysis. At this stage, collaborators could offer additional datasets that may be useful, or they could contribute ideas, help to run analyses or interpret the data, see below for more on contributions. The procedure for proposing ideas for manuscripts is the following:
1. Preparation of manuscript proposal. Prepare a manuscript proposal and send it to the BugNet Core Team. The manuscript proposal should contain a list of the lead authors, a title and an abstract. It should include the key questions to be addressed and should outline the specific variables from the BugNet dataset that you would like to use, and the analysis you aim to do (this can be quite preliminary). Moreover, it should contain a timeline for the analysis and writing. The manuscript proposal form can be found here .
2. Proposal review. The manuscript proposals will be reviewed by the BugNet Core Team to ensure that there is no overlap with ongoing BugNet papers. They will also be discussed with the Advisory board. We might propose alterations or suggest combining manuscripts if overlap is an issue.
3. Circulating manuscript drafts. Once approved, manuscript drafts should be circulated to Bug-Network collaborators to solicit Opt-In authorship. The BugNet core team (Anne, Suz and Eric) can provide you with an email list of collaborators that contributed to the dataset. This email should include a deadline by which time collaborators should respond. Collaborators can indicate their interest to the lead authors. We recommend circulating manuscript drafts at a very early stage as this allows for more effective co-author contributions.
4. Analysis and Writing. The lead authors should keep an email list of all co-authors and report regularly about the progress of the analysis, share figures and text, or organize zoom discussion if this is helpful. The complete drafts should be circulated among the co-authors and their comments and changes considered. However, co-authors should respect that the final decision belong to the lead author. Before submission, final manuscripts should be approved by each co-author.
5. Author contribution. All authors and co-authors should fill out their contribution in the authorship contribution statement table. Lead authors are responsible for ensuring consistency in credit given for contributions, and may alter co-author’s entries in the table to do so. Final authorship assignment is the responsibility of the lead author of the manuscript. We strongly encourage inclusivity in authorship.
An easy way to manage the author table is with an online google sheet. Lead authors should ensure that all authors have contributed to at least two areas in the authorship rubric. Authors are encouraged to contact the BugNet core team about any confusion or conflicts. Below is a list of potential contributions (authorship rubrics).
Authorship rubric and guidelines
Authorship must be earned through a substantial contribution. Traditionally, project initiation and framing, data analysis and interpretation, and manuscript preparation are all authorship-worthy contributions, and remain so for BugNet manuscripts. Collaborators who contributed data that is used in a paper can also opt-in as co-authors, if they make additional contribution to a manuscript, thus for co-authorship, each individual must be able to check at least two boxes in the authorship rubric.
|Authorship rubric||Example contribution meriting a checked box|
|Developed and framed research question||Originated idea for current analysis, contributed significantly to framing the ideas in this analysis at early stage of manuscript|
|Analyzed data||Generated models (conceptual, statistical and / or mathematical), figures, tables, maps etc., or generated a dataset being used in this manuscript’s analysis (e.g. identification of invertebrates, measuring additional variables)|
|Contributed to data analyses||Provided comments, suggestions, and code for data analysis|
|Wrote the paper||Wrote the majority of at least one of the sections of the paper|
|Contributed to paper writing||Provided suggestions such as restructuring ideas, text and citations linking to new literature areas, copy editing|
|Provided data, site PI||Coordinated data collection, proofing, and submission of data for at least one site used in this manuscript|
|Bug-Network Core Team||Contributed substantially (i.e. more than 300 hours per year) to network level activities such as management of network data, recruiting and assisting new sites, finding funding for network level management activities|