Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

Science is becoming increasingly more interdisciplinary, giving rise to more diversity in the areas of expertise. In such a complex environment, the participation of authors became more specialized, hampering the task of evaluating authors according to their contributions. While some metrics were adapted to account for the order (or rank) of authors in a paper, many journals are now requiring a description of their specific roles in the publication. Surprisingly, the investigation of the relationships between credited contributions and author's rank has been limited to a few studies. Here we analyzed such a kind of data and show, quantitatively, that the regularity in the authorship contributions decreases with the number of authors in a paper. Furthermore, we found that the rank of authors and their roles in papers follow three general patterns according to the nature of their contributions: (i) the total contribution increases with author's rank; (ii) the total contribution decreases with author's rank; and (iii) the total contribution is symmetric, with most of contributions being performed by first and last authors. This was accomplished by collecting and analyzing the data retrieved from PLoS One and by devising a measurement of the effective number of authors in a paper. The analysis of such patterns confirms that some aspects of the author ranking are in accordance with the expected convention, such as the first and last authors being more likely to contribute more diversely in a scientific work. Conversely, such analysis also revealed that authors in the intermediary positions of the rank contribute more in specific roles, such as collecting data. This indicates that the an unbiased evaluation of researchers must take into account the distinct types of scientific contributions.

[1]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[2]  D. C. Mishra.  Citations: rankings weigh against developing nations , 2008, Nature.

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

[4]  George M. Santangelo,et al.  Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level , 2015, bioRxiv.

[5]  Markus R. Wenk,et al.  Lipid Anti-Lipid Antibody Responses Correlate with Disease Activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus , 2013, PloS one.

[6]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton's Cosine versus the Jaccard index , 2008 .

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

[8]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  On the use of topological features and hierarchical characterization for disambiguating names in collaborative networks , 2012, ArXiv.

[9]  Y. Pasadeos,et al.  Organizational Analysis in North America and Europe: A Comparison of Co-citation Networks , 1995 .

[10]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation , 2001, Journal of Political Economy.

[11]  Akshaya Kumar Biswal,et al.  An Absolute Index (Ab-index) to Measure a Researcher’s Useful Contributions and Productivity , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  Michael Schreiber.  Restricting the h-index to a publication and citation time window: A case study of a timed Hirsch index , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[13]  Sebastian Galiani,et al.  Quantifying the Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles Across Fields of Economic Research , 2016 .

[14]  L. D. Costa,et al.  Accessibility in complex networks , 2008 .

[15]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Three-feature model to reproduce the topology of citation networks and the effects from authors' visibility on their h-index , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[16]  Matheus Palhares Viana,et al.  On time-varying collaboration networks , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[17]  Maria Bardosova,et al.  Using network science and text analytics to produce surveys in a scientific topic , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[18]  A. Regalado,et al.  Multiauthor papers on the rise. , 1995, Science.

[19]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science , 2011, Scientometrics.

[20]  Robert Aboukhalil,et al.  The rising trend in authorship , 2014 .

[21]  Diego Rybski,et al.  The myth of global science collaboration - Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities , 2011, J. Informetrics.

[22]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Ç. Şekercioğlu.  Quantifying Coauthor Contributions , 2008, Science.

[24]  William F. Laurance,et al.  Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists , 2006, Nature.

[25]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[27]  L. Egghe,et al.  Theory and practise of the g-index , 2006, Scientometrics.

[28]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[29]  Michael D. Jennions,et al.  H-index: age and sex make it unreliable , 2007, Nature.

[30]  Diego R. Amancio,et al.  Authorship recognition via fluctuation analysis of network topology and word intermittency , 2015, ArXiv.

[31]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[33]  Michael C. Wendl,et al.  H-index: however ranked, citations need context , 2007, Nature.

[34]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production , 2016, Social studies of science.

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

[36]  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 .

[37]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Using complex networks concepts to assess approaches for citations in scientific papers , 2012, Scientometrics.

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

[39]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[40]  K. Brad Wray,et al.  Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research , 2006 .

[41]  R. Slone.  Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[42]  L. Jost.  Entropy and diversity , 2006 .

[43]  Shou-De Lin,et al.  Time-Aware Ranking in Dynamic Citation Networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops.

[44]  Henry Sauermann,et al.  The Anatomy of Teams: Division of Labor and Allocation of Credit in Collaborative Knowledge Production , 2014 .

[45]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications , 2007, PLoS biology.

[46]  Luciano da Fontoura Costa,et al.  Unveiling the relationship between complex networks metrics and word senses , 2012, ArXiv.

[47]  M. Greene.  The demise of the lone author , 2007, Nature.