Skip to main content
v2026.11,772 entries · CC-BY 4.0
Dictionary termTrack AStablev2026.2

Conceptualization lead vs supporting

Under the CRediT taxonomy, the distinction between the contributor who led the formulation of the overarching research question, aims, or ideas for a project (Conceptualization: lead) and those who contributed to but did not originate the conceptual framing (Conceptualization: supporting).

ByCASRAI Editorial Board
· Last updated 22 Aug 2026
Share this

Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar

Ask about Conceptualization lead vs supporting

Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.

150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.

Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.

Examples

Worked examples

  • Is an instance

    A doctoral candidate listed as 'Conceptualization: lead' alongside their supervisor as 'Conceptualization: supporting' to reflect that the candidate originated the research question

Counter-examples

Looks similar, but isn't

  • Not an instance

    Listing the most senior author as 'Conceptualization: lead' by convention, when in fact a junior author originated the idea, misrepresents the contribution

Editorial commentary

Within CRediT’s Conceptualization role, the lead/supporting qualifier distinguishes the contributor who formulated the project’s overarching research question, aims, or ideas (“Conceptualization: lead”) from contributors who developed or refined that framing without originating it (“Conceptualization: supporting”). Conceptualization is one of the two CRediT roles — alongside Methodology — most closely aligned with ICMJE’s first authorship criterion, “substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work,” which makes the lead/supporting distinction matter for how a paper’s origin is actually recorded.

How it differs from related terms: This is one specific application of CASRAI’s degree-of-contribution qualifier, which can be applied to any of the 14 CRediT roles, not only Conceptualization; Funding acquisition: lead vs. supporting applies the identical mechanism to a different role.

A doctoral candidate who originated a project’s core research question, working under a supervisor who helped refine it, would appropriately be listed “Conceptualization: lead” with the supervisor “Conceptualization: supporting” — a distinction seniority alone should not override.

References

  • NISO CRediT Standard, ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022
  • Brand et al., “Beyond authorship,” Learned Publishing (2015)

Also known as

CRediT conceptualization qualifier

Machine-readable encodings

Use in your systems

JATS XML <role> element
xml
<role vocab="credit"
      vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
      vocab-term="Conceptualization lead vs supporting"
      vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/conceptualization-lead-vs-supporting" />
Schema.org DefinedTerm (JSON-LD)
json
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "DefinedTerm",
  "@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/conceptualization-lead-vs-supporting",
  "name": "Conceptualization lead vs supporting",
  "identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/conceptualization-lead-vs-supporting",
  "description": "Under the CRediT taxonomy, the distinction between the contributor who led the formulation of the overarching research question, aims, or ideas for a project (Conceptualization: lead) and those who contributed to but did not originate the conceptual framing (Conceptualization: supporting).",
  "inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/credit-extensions#set",
  "url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/conceptualization-lead-vs-supporting",
  "sameAs": [
    "CRediT conceptualization qualifier"
  ],
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "publisher": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
  },
  "author": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
  },
  "datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:00:20",
  "dateModified": "2026-08-22T15:05:02",
  "inLanguage": "en-GB",
  "isAccessibleForFree": true
}

Referenced across the research world

University of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logoUniversity of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logo
  • University of Cambridge logo
  • Columbia University logo
  • Crossref logo
  • University of Edinburgh logo
  • Harvard University logo
  • University of Oxford logo
  • Princeton University logo
  • Stanford School of Medicine logo
  • University College London logo
  • ORCID logo

View CASRAI adoption →

Regulatory Radar

Stop finding out after the fact

$29/month, cancel anytime. Daily digest updates from our analysis, a dashboard holding the same items, and a cited assistant for everything they raise.

  • Federal Register, Federal Register+, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov, NSF News, UKRI, plus CASRAI’s own published content.
  • 72,264 indexed passages, and every answer cites the ones it drew on.