More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis

Authors:

Tamy ChambersAuthors Info & Claims

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Volume 67, Issue 8

Pages 1973 - 1989

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23495

Published: 01 August 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Credit assignment to multiple authors of a publication is a challenging task owing to the conventions followed within different areas of research. In this study, we present a review of different author credit-assignment schemas, which are designed mainly based on author position and the total number of coauthors on the publication. We implemented, tested, and classified 15 author credit-assignment schemas into 3 types: linear, curve, and "other" assignment schemas. Further investigation and analysis revealed that most of the methods provide reasonable credit-assignment results, even though the credit-assignment distribution approaches are quite different among different types. The evaluation of each schema based on PubMed articles published in 2013 shows that there exist positive correlations among different schemas and that the similarity of credit-assignment distributions can be derived from the similar design principles that stress the number of coauthors or the author position, or consider both. We provide a summary about the features of each credit-assignment schema to facilitate the selection of the appropriate one, depending on the different conditions required to meet diverse needs.

References

[1]

Abbas, A.M. 2010. Generalized linear weights for sharing credits among multiple authors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.5477.

[2]

Abbas, A.M. 2011. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics, Volume 88 Issue 1, pp.107-131.

Digital Library

[3]

Abbas, A.M. 2013. Polynomial weights or generalized geometric weights: Yet another scheme for assigning credits to multiple authors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1103.2848.

[4]

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., &Rosati, F. 2013. The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. Journal of Informetrics, Volume 7 Issue 1, pp.198-208.

[5]

Bayer, A.E., &Folger, J. 1966. Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science. Sociology of Education, Volume 39 Issue 4, pp.381-390. Retrieved from "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2111920"

[6]

Birnholtz, J.P. 2006. What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 57 Issue 13, pp.1758-1770.

Digital Library

[7]

Carbone, V. 2011. Fractional counting of authorship to quantify scientific research output. arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0114.

[8]

Chubin, D. 1973. On the use of the "Science Citation Index" in sociology. The American Sociologist, Volume 8 Issue 4, pp.187-191. Retrieved from "http://www.jstor.org/stable/27702104"

[9]

Cole, J.R., &Cole, S. 1973. Social stratification in science.

[10]

Cronin, B. 2001. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 52 Issue 7, pp.558-569.

Digital Library

[11]

Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., &Van Hooydonk, G. 2000. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 51 Issue 2, pp.145-157.

Digital Library

[12]

Frances Scientist. 2011. Author ranking system: "Impact factor" of the last author. Retrieved from "http://francesscientist.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/author-ranking-system-impact-factor-of-the-last-author/"

[13]

Friendly, M. 2002. Corrgrams: Exploratory displays for correlation matrices. The American Statistician, Volume 56 Issue 4, pp.316-324. Retrieved from "http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087354"

[14]

Gauffriau, M., &Larsen, P.O. 2005. Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics, Volume 64 Issue 1, pp.85-93.

[15]

Hagen, N.T. 2008. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, Volume 3 Issue 12, pp.e4021.

[16]

Hagen, N.T. 2010. Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably-Not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, Volume 84 Issue 3, pp.785-793.

[17]

Hagen, N.T. 2013. Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, Volume 7 Issue 4, pp.784-791.

[18]

Hargens, L.L., &Hagstrom, W.O. 1967. Sponsored and contest mobility of American academic scientists. Sociology of Education, Volume 40 Issue 1, pp.24-38. Retrieved from "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112185"

[19]

He, B., Ding, Y., &Yan, E. 2012. Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, Volume 6 Issue 3, pp.359-367.

[20]

Hirsch, J.E. 2010. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, Volume 85 Issue 3, pp.741-754.

Digital Library

[21]

Hu, X., Rousseau, R., &Chen, J. 2010. In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, Volume 36 Issue 1, pp.73-85.

Digital Library

[22]

Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2008. Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact. PLoS ONE, Volume 3 Issue 7, pp.e2778.

[23]

Jian, D., &Xiaoli, T. 2013. Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices. Scientometrics, Volume 96 Issue 1, pp.277-295.

Digital Library

[24]

Kaufmann, P., Annis, C., &Griggs, R.C. 2010. The authorship lottery: An impediment to research collaboration? Annals of Neurology, Volume 68 Issue 6, pp.782-786.

[25]

King, C. 2007. Multiauthor papers redux: A new peek at new peaks. Science Watch, Volume 18 Issue 6, pp.1-2. Retrieved from "http://archive.sciencewatch.com/nov-dec2007/sw_nov-dec2007_page1.htm"

[26]

Kretschmer, H., &Rousseau, R. 2001. Author inflation leads to a breakdown of Lotka's law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Volume 52 Issue 8, pp.610-614.

Digital Library

[27]

Lawrence, P.A. 2007. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology, Volume 17 Issue 15, pp.R583-R585.

[28]

Leash, E. 1997. Is it time for a new approach to authorship? Journal of Dental Research, Volume 76 Issue 3, pp.724-727.

[29]

Li, Z., Sun, Y.-M., Wu, F.-X., Yang, L.-Q., Lu, Z.-J., & Yu, W.-F. 2013. Equal contributions and credit: An emerging trend in the characterization of authorship in major anaesthesia journals during a 10-yr period. PLoS ONE, Volume 8 Issue 8, pp.e71430.

[30]

Lindsey, D. 1980. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, Volume 10 Issue 2, pp.145-162.

[31]

Liu, X.Z., &Fang, H. 2012. Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics, Volume 91 Issue 1, pp.37-49.

Digital Library

[32]

Lukovits, I., &Vinkler, P. 1995. Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors. Social Indicators Research, Volume 36 Issue 1, pp.91-98.

[33]

Price, D.D.S. 1963. Little science, big science p. pp.119. New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2818066"

[34]

Price, D.D.S. 1981. Multiple authorship. Science, Volume 212 Issue 4498, pp.986.

[35]

Sekercioglu, C.H. 2008. Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science, Volume 322 Issue 5900, pp.371.

[36]

Smith, M. 1958. The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, Volume 13 Issue 10, pp.596.

[37]

Spearman, C. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, Volume 15 Issue 1, pp.72-101.

[38]

Tol, R.S. 2011. Credit where credit's due: Accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics, Volume 89 Issue 1, pp.291-299.

Digital Library

[39]

Trueba, F.J., &Guerrero, H. 2004. A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, Volume 60 Issue 2, pp.181-204.

[40]

Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M.E., Rand, T.A., Resh, V.H., &Krauss, J. 2007. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, Volume 5 Issue 1, pp.e18.

[41]

Van Hooydonk, G. 1997. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 48 Issue 10, pp.944-945.

Digital Library

[42]

Wager, E. 2009. Recognition, reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas, Volume 62 Issue 2, pp.109-112.

[43]

Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., &Uzzi, B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, Volume 316 Issue 5827, pp.1036-1039.

[44]

Zhang, C.T. 2009. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, Volume 10 Issue 5, pp.416-417.

Cited By

Sundling P(2023)Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biologyScientometrics10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y128:5(2737-2762)Online publication date: 31-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y
Griffin DArth ZHakim SBritt BGilbreath JPike MLaningham ABordbar FHart SBolkan S(2021)Collaborations in communication: Authorship credit allocation via a weighted fractional count procedureScientometrics10.1007/s11192-021-03927-w126:5(4355-4372)Online publication date: 1-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-021-03927-w
Fassin Y(2020)The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-indexScientometrics10.1007/s11192-020-03611-5125:2(965-990)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-020-03611-5
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Retractions in Science

Retractions are rare in science, but there is growing concern about the impact retracted papers have. We present data on the retractions in the journal Science, between 1983 and 2017. Each year, approximately 2.6 papers are retracted; that is about 0.34%...
Examining interdisciplinarity of library and information science (LIS) based on LIS articles contributed by non-LIS authors

This study investigated the external contributors of library and information science (LIS) knowledge who were unaffiliated with LIS-related institutions but published their research results in LIS journals. Differences between the contributors to ...
Does the multi-authorship trend influence the quality of an article?

In the last few decades, multi-authored articles have increased in different disciplines with increasing instances of authorship abuse although multi-authorship is not always due to undeserving authorship (McDonald et al. in Mayo Clin Proc 85(10):920---...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Volume 67, Issue 8

August 2016

254 pages

ISSN:2330-1635

EISSN:2330-1643

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 August 2016

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

6
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 04 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sundling P(2023)Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biologyScientometrics10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y128:5(2737-2762)Online publication date: 31-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y
Griffin DArth ZHakim SBritt BGilbreath JPike MLaningham ABordbar FHart SBolkan S(2021)Collaborations in communication: Authorship credit allocation via a weighted fractional count procedureScientometrics10.1007/s11192-021-03927-w126:5(4355-4372)Online publication date: 1-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-021-03927-w
Fassin Y(2020)The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-indexScientometrics10.1007/s11192-020-03611-5125:2(965-990)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-020-03611-5
Osório A(2018)On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publicationsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-018-2815-6116:3(2161-2173)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-018-2815-6
Bu YDing YXu JLiang XGao GZhao Y(2018)Understanding success through the diversity of collaborators and the milestone of careerJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2391169:1(87-97)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/asi.23911
Pradhan DPaul PMaheswari UNandi SChakraborty T(2017)$$C^3$$C3-indexScientometrics10.1007/s11192-016-2168-y110:1(253-273)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-016-2168-y

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents