The need to quantify authors' relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper

Measuring the contribution of each author of a multi-author paper has been a long standing concern. As a possible solution to this, we propose a list of intellectual activities and logistic support activities that might be involved in the production of a research paper. We then develop a quantitative approach to estimate an author’s relative intellectual contribution to a published work. An author’s relative intellectual contribution is calculated as the percent contribution of an author to each intellectual activity involved in the production of the paper multiplied by a weighing factor for each intellectual activity. The relative intellectual contribution calculated in this way can be used to determine the position of an author in the author list of a paper. Second, a corrected citation index for each author, called the T-index, can be calculated by multiplying the relative intellectual contribution by the total citations received by a paper. The proposed approach can be used to measure the impact of an author of a multi-authored paper in a more accurate way than either giving each author full credit or dividing credit equally. Our proposal not only resolves the long standing concern for the fair distribution of each author’s credit depending on his/her contribution, but it will also, hopefully, discourage addition of non-contributing authors to a paper.

[1]  N. Assimakis,et al.  A new author’s productivity index: p-index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[2]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers , 2009, Science Editor and Publisher.

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

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

[5]  Marek Kosmulski,et al.  The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[6]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies , 2005, Scientometrics.

[7]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Field-Normalized Citation Impact Indicators and the Choice of an Appropriate Counting Method , 2015, ISSI.

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

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

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

[11]  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.

[12]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Contributory inequality alters assessment of academic output gap between comparable countries , 2015, J. Informetrics.

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

[14]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias , 2014, J. Informetrics.

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

[16]  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.

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

[18]  Peder Olesen Larsen,et al.  Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research , 2007, Scientometrics.

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

[20]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies , 2004, Scientometrics.

[21]  Thomas R. Scott,et al.  QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors , 2003, Nature.

[22]  F. Davidoff.  News from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

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

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

[25]  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 .

[26]  Y. Liu,et al.  Credit Where Credit Is Due , 2001 .

[27]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Self-citation and Self-reference: Credibility and Promotion in Academic Publication , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[29]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods , 2012, J. Informetrics.

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

[31]  Roderick Hunt,et al.  Trying an authorship index , 1991, Nature.

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

[33]  Roger Watson Editor-in-Chief.  Who writes, whose rights, and who's right? Issues in authorship , 2013 .

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

[35]  Leo Egghe,et al.  Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

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

[37]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Reversing the byline hierarchy: The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[38]  Shaon Sahoo.  Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index , 2016, Scientometrics.

[39]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[40]  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.

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

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

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

[44]  Dag W. Aksnes,et al.  Does self-citation pay? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[45]  D. Rennie,et al.  The contributions of authors. , 2000, JAMA.

[46]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..