Dynamic credit allocation in scientific literature

Collaboration among researchers is an essential component of the scientific process, playing a particularly important role in findings with significant impact. While extensive efforts have been devoted to quantifying and predicting scientific impact, the question of how credit is allocated to coauthors of publications with multiple authors within a complex evolving system remains a long-standing problem in scientometrics. In this paper, we propose a dynamic credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community, incorporating a reinforcement mechanism and a power-law temporal relaxation function. The citation data from American Physical Society are used to validate our method. We find that the proposed method can significantly outperform the state-of-the-art method in identifying the authors of Nobel-winning papers that are credited for the discovery, independent of their positions in the author list. Furthermore, the proposed methodology also allows us to determine the temporal evolution of credit between coauthors. Finally, the predictive power of our method can be further improved by incorporating the author list prior appropriately.

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

[2]  James A. Evans,et al.  Future Science , 2013, Science.

[3]  Donald Kennedy,et al.  Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems , 2003, Science.

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

[5]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[6]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists , 2009, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[7]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

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

[9]  M. Newman Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[11]  S. Redner Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review , 2005, physics/0506056.

[12]  Jana Diesner,et al.  Distortive effects of initial‐based name disambiguation on measurements of large‐scale coauthorship networks , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  W Foulkes,et al.  Relative contribution should be given after each author's name , 1996, BMJ.

[14]  J. Hirsch Does the h index have predictive power? , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Harmonic Allocation of Authorship Credit: Source-Level Correction of Bibliometric Bias Assures Accurate Publication and Citation Analysis , 2008, PloS one.

[16]  W. Foulkes,et al.  Relative contribution should be given after each author's name , 1996 .

[17]  Geoffroy de Clippel,et al.  Impartial division of a dollar , 2008, J. Econ. Theory.

[18]  Liaojun Pang,et al.  Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact , 2016, Science.

[20]  Joon-Oh Park,et al.  The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2011 .

[21]  Jeffrey R. Biggs Allocating the Credit in Collaborative Research , 2008, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[22]  Marjorie M. K. Hlava,et al.  Publishing: Credit where credit is due , 2014, Nature.

[23]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Collective credit allocation in science , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  Universality of scholarly impact metrics , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[25]  A. D. Jackson,et al.  Measures for measures , 2006, Nature.

[26]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[28]  E. Garfield Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. , 1972, Science.