&gt; I think we need to be careful about how we define creative contribution; there&#x27;s a line to be drawn somewhere in there between a creative contribution for the sake of the software (i.e., speeding up execution time by 4x for a simulation running on a cluster) versus a creative contribution that enables the research (i.e., a novel real-time optimization algorithm for electrostimulation). The latter certainly warrants authorship, but I don&#x27;t think the former does.<p>I agree, and the distinction you have made is a big part of why I consider the notion of an academic research programmer to be an intriguing idea.  I think you&#x27;ve identified exactly the kind of innovation that isn&#x27;t really recognized or rewarded through the current academic system.  Your &quot;former&quot; example, for example, might still require a high level of innovation (perhaps a novel way of splitting up a calculation so that it can be solved in parallel on a cluster), but this innovation isn&#x27;t really part of the study itself. How do you recognize this as creative work?  And even if it isn&#x27;t part of the study itself, what if this &quot;solution in parallel&quot; was an essential part of the study (i.e.., solution times without would have been so long that it wouldn&#x27;t have been possible to refine the model to the point of having usable results?)