Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes

This paper compares Fractional, Geometric, Arithmetic, Harmonic, and Network-Based schemes for allocating coauthorship credits. Each scheme is operationalized to be flexible in producing credit distribution by changing parameters, and to incorporate a special situation where the first and corresponding authors are assigned equal credits. For testing each scheme, empirical datasets from economics, marketing, psychology, chemistry, and medicine, were collected and errors in how each scheme approximates empirical data was measured. Results show that Harmonic scheme performs best overall, contrary to some claims of preceding studies in support of Harmonic or Network-Based models. The performance of a scheme, however, seems to heavily depend on empirical datasets and flexibility of the scheme, not on its innate feature. This study suggests that the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes should be taken with care.

[1]  Xiaojun Hu,et al.  Loads of special authorship functions: Linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors , 2009 .

[2]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[3]  I. Lukovits,et al.  Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors , 1995 .

[4]  Marie Diener-West,et al.  Results of an Academic Promotion and Career Path Survey of Faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , 2004, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[5]  M Dym,et al.  Gossypol: effect on testosterone. , 1981, Science.

[6]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Jana Diesner,et al.  Coauthorship networks: A directed network approach considering the order and number of coauthors , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  P. Vinkler.  Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators , 2000 .

[9]  Patrice Laget,et al.  Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position , 2011, Scientometrics.

[10]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[11]  R. Dellavalle,et al.  The write position , 2007, EMBO reports.

[12]  Giovanni Abramo,et al.  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 , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[13]  S. Wright,et al.  Looking forward to promotion , 2003, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[14]  Héctor Guerrero,et al.  A robust formula to credit authors for their publications , 2004, Scientometrics.

[15]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically , 2009, Scientometrics.

[16]  Vincenzo Carbone.  Fractional counting of authorship to quantify scientific research output , 2011, ArXiv.

[17]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[18]  Ana Marušić,et al.  A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines , 2011, PloS one.

[19]  Duncan Lindsey,et al.  Production and Citation Measures in the Sociology of Science: The Problem of Multiple Authorship , 1980 .

[20]  Charles Oppenheim.  Fractional counting of multiauthored publications , 1998 .

[21]  Tang Xiaoli,et al.  Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices , 2013, Scientometrics.

[22]  Guido Van Hooydonk,et al.  Fractional Counting of Multiauthored Publications: Consequences for the Impact of Authors , 1997, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[23]  Tove Faber Frandsen,et al.  What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[24]  Peter Vinkler,et al.  Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness , 2005, Scientometrics.

[25]  Xuan Zhen Liu,et al.  Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[26]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Research Note - The Researcher as a Consumer of Scientific Publications: How Do Name-Ordering Conventions Affect Inferences About Contribution Credits? , 2009, Mark. Sci..

[27]  Bing He,et al.  Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[28]  Jana Diesner,et al.  A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation , 2014, Scientometrics.

[29]  Guido Van Hooydonk,et al.  Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation studies , 2000 .