Clarify Investigation contributor role for this project

[jaclyn-taroni]

We are using the CRediT taxonomy for contributor roles in this project (Authorship section of CONTRIBUTING.md). One of the terms in CRediT is Investigation, defined as:

Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection

From #110 (comment):

I am a bit fuzzy on our use of Investigation - which seems to be mostly related to QC and benchmarking (#107) - but more generally I would expect substantial overlap with Formal Analysis

and from @jharenza on #110 (comment):

I took it to mean that deeper "inspection" of the unexpected data/analyses/pathology would fall under this... we could probably clarify that term, since it is a bit more vague for computational work?

We should clarify the use of this term in the authorship section of the contributing guidelines.

[jharenza]

@jaclyn-taroni thinking more about this - I think these are somewhat overlapping for analysts who do some deeper dives - easy eg are @jashapiro with CNV and @cansavvy with TMB - I think this would qualify for both Formal Analysis in that they created modules to analyze the data, but Investigation in that they had to really dig into the data/code to determine why the output wasn't pretty "out of the box". For those not doing analysis, but did have to dig deeper for eg - pathologists who went back through path reports, radiology, slides, imaging, etc - this would be Investigation to me.

[jaclyn-taroni]

@jharenza your description seems reasonable to me.