Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

Current research performance assessment criteria contribute to some extent to author inflation per publication. Among various indicators for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authors, harmonic counting is relatively superior in terms of calculation, scientific ethics, and application. However, two important factors in harmonic counting are not yet clearly understood. These factors are the perceptions of scientists regarding the (1) corresponding author and (2) equally credited authors (ECAs). We carry out a survey investigation on different perceptions of author position versus contribution among medical researchers with different subfields and professional ranks in China, in order to provide several pieces of evidence on the aforementioned factors. We are surprised to find that researchers with different professional ranks tend to largely acknowledge their own contribution in collaborative research. Next, we conduct an empirical study to measure individual’s citation impact using inflated counts versus harmonic counts. The results indicate that harmonic h-index cannot reflect the high peak of harmonic citations. Therefore, we use (1) harmonic R-index to differentiate authors based on the harmonic citations of each paper belonging to their respective h-cores; and (2) Normalization harmonic (h, R) index as a meaningful indicator in ranking scientists. Using a sample of 40 Ph.D. mentors in the field of cardiac and cardiovascular diseases, harmonic counts can distinguish between scientists who are often listed as major contributors and those regularly listed as co-authors. This method may also discourage unethical publication practices such as ghost authorship and gift authorship.

[1]  Erica Frank,et al.  Significance of Authorship Position: An Open-Ended International Assessment , 2011, The American journal of the medical sciences.

[2]  Michael Schreiber.  A case study of the modified Hirsch index h m accounting for multiple coauthors , 2009 .

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

[4]  Francis L. Macrina.  Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research , 2005 .

[5]  Hude Quan,et al.  Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment , 2010, BMC medical education.

[6]  E. Lautenbach,et al.  "Equal" contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. , 2010, Annals of epidemiology.

[7]  Ge Wang,et al.  Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions , 2010, ArXiv.

[8]  Peter R. Fontana,et al.  Author Order and Research Quality , 1977 .

[9]  Gregg L. Semenza,et al.  Fostering trust—J Mol Med’s scientific integrity policy , 2008, Journal of Molecular Medicine.

[10]  Jacob Rosenberg,et al.  Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Læger and Danish Medical Journal. , 2012, Danish medical journal.

[11]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  The pure h-index: calculating an author’s h- index by taking co-authors into account , 2007 .

[12]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices , 2010, J. Inf. Sci..

[13]  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.

[14]  Michael Schreiber.  A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[15]  Michelle Cleary,et al.  Psychiatry and the Hirsch h‐index: The Relationship Between Journal Impact Factors and Accrued Citations , 2010, Harvard review of psychiatry.

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

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

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

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

[20]  Li Yang,et al.  A causational analysis of scholars’ years of active academic careers vis-à-vis their academic productivity and academic influence , 2011 .

[21]  Nils T. Hagen,et al.  Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[22]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective , 2011, Scientometrics.

[23]  Jorge E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship , 2009, Scientometrics.

[24]  T. Gaeta,et al.  Authorship: "Law" and order. , 1999, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[25]  Richard Van Noorden,et al.  Metrics: Do metrics matter? , 2010, Nature.

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

[27]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index - Comments , 2007 .

[28]  Mary Moore,et al.  Trends in Authorship Order in Biomedical Research Publications , 2011 .

[29]  Philip J. Wyatt.  Commentary: Too many authors, too few creators , 2012 .

[30]  Bengt Fadeel,et al.  “But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” , 2009, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[31]  Vroni Retzer,et al.  Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators – A protocol for incorporating complexity , 2009 .

[32]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[33]  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..

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

[35]  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.

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

[37]  Lucas D. Eggert.  Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles , 2011, Front. Psychology.

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

[39]  Gangan Prathap.  The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship , 2010, Scientometrics.

[40]  Serge Galam,et al.  Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index , 2010, Scientometrics.

[41]  Fei Wang,et al.  Equal contributions and credit given to authors in anesthesiology journals during a 10-year period , 2011, Scientometrics.

[42]  Jinbao Li,et al.  Equal contributions and credit given to authors in critical care medicine journals during a 10-yr period* , 2012, Critical care medicine.

[43]  Hui Fang,et al.  Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index , 2011, Scientometrics.

[44]  M. Fischer,et al.  Job requirements compared to medical school education: differences between graduates from problem-based learning and conventional curricula , 2010, BMC medical education.

[45]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matters. , 2009, Maturitas.

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

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

[48]  Roger Watson,et al.  Editorial: Location, location, location - the position of authors in scholarly publishing. , 2012, Journal of clinical nursing.

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

[50]  R. Rousseau,et al.  The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index , 2007 .

[51]  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.

[52]  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..

[53]  M. Castillo,et al.  Authorship and Bylines , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[54]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..