Freeloading in biomedical research

The surge in the number of authors per article in the biomedical field makes it difficult to quantify the contribution of individual authors. Conventional citation metrics are typically based on the number of publications and the number of citations generated by a scientist, thereby disregarding the contribution of co-authors. Previously we developed the p -index that estimates the dependency of a scientist on co-authors during their career. In this study we aimed to evaluate the ability of the p -index to identify researchers with a relatively high degree of scientific dependence on co-authors. For this purpose, we retrieved articles, which were rejected for publication in Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis and subsequently published elsewhere. Assuming that authors who were added to a later version of these articles would not fulfill the full authorship criteria, we tested whether these authors showed a larger dependency on co-authors during their scientific career as would be evident from a higher p -index. In accordance with this hypothesis, authors who were added on later versions of articles showed a higher p -index than their peers, indicating an enduring pattern of dependency on other co-authors for publishing their work. This study underscores that questionable authorship practices are endemic to the biomedical research, which calls for alternative methods to evaluate a scientist’s qualities.

[1]  Elise Smith,et al.  Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies , 2011, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[2]  M. Rozing,et al.  Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Chun-Ting Zhang,et al.  A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank , 2009, EMBO reports.

[4]  Nazmul Haque,et al.  The need to quantify authors' relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[5]  S. Boyer,et al.  Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles , 2017, Research Integrity and Peer Review.

[6]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts , 2011, Scientometrics.

[7]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across disciplines , 2005 .

[8]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[9]  Nees Jan van Eck,et al.  Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering , 2014 .

[10]  Armen Yuri Gasparyan,et al.  Systematic and Open Identification of Researchers and Authors: Focus on Open Researcher and Contributor ID , 2014, Journal of Korean medical science.

[11]  A. Flanagin,et al.  Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Paul W. Millhouse,et al.  Authorship Considerations: What Qualifies? , 2016, Clinical Spine Surgery.

[13]  Ana Marusic,et al.  Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[14]  Ash Mohammad Abbas,et al.  Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship , 2010, Scientometrics.

[15]  Mônica G. Campiteli,et al.  Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? , 2006, Scientometrics.

[16]  Michael Schreiber,et al.  To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts , 2008 .

[17]  D. Boffito,et al.  Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories , 2018, bioRxiv.

[18]  D. Boffito,et al.  Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories , 2018, bioRxiv.

[19]  Jozsef Kovacs,et al.  Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article , 2012, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[20]  J. Lewis,et al.  Increasing Complexity of Clinical Research in Gastroenterology: Implications for the Training of Clinician-Scientists , 2012, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[21]  Juan Imperial,et al.  Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain , 2007, Scientometrics.

[22]  Matko Marušić,et al.  Quantification of Authors’ Contributions and Eligibility for Authorship: Randomized Study in a General Medical Journal , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[23]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact , 2008, PloS one.