IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v9y2015i3p629-641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contributory inequality alters assessment of academic output gap between comparable countries

Author

Listed:
  • Hagen, Nils T.

Abstract

An elite segment of the academic output gap between Denmark and Norway was examined using harmonic estimates of publication credit for contributions to Science and Nature in 2012 and 2013. Denmark still leads but the gap narrowed in 2013 as Norway's credit increased 58%, while Denmark's credit increased only 5.4%, even though Norway had 36% fewer, and Denmark 40% more, coauthor contributions than in 2012. Concurrently, the credit produced by the least productive half of the contributions rose tenfold from 0.9% to 10.1% for Norway, but dropped from 7.2% to 5.7% for Denmark. Overall, contributory inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient, fell from 0.78 to 0.51 for Norway, but rose from 0.63 to 0.68 for Denmark. Neither gap narrowing nor the positive association between reduced contributory inequality and increased credit were detected by conventional metrics. Conventional metrics are confounded by equalizing bias (EqB) which favours small contributors at the expense of large contributors, and which carries an element of reverse meritocracy and systemic injustice into bibliometric performance assessment. EqB was corrected by using all relevant byline information from every coauthored publication in the source data. This approach demonstrates the feasibility of using EqB-corrected publication credit in gap assessment at the national level.

Suggested Citation

  • Hagen, Nils T., 2015. "Contributory inequality alters assessment of academic output gap between comparable countries," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 629-641.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:3:p:629-641
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157715200302
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2015.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leydesdorff, Loet & Wagner, Caroline S., 2008. "International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 317-325.
    2. Bidault, Francis & Hildebrand, Thomas, 2014. "The distribution of partnership returns: Evidence from co-authorships in economics journals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1002-1013.
    3. Marianne Gauffriau & Peder Olesen Larsen & Isabelle Maye & Anne Roulin-Perriard & Markus Ins, 2008. "Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 147-176, October.
    4. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Reversing the byline hierarchy: The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 618-627.
    5. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 310-317.
    6. Lidia Ceriani & Paolo Verme, 2012. "The origins of the Gini index: extracts from Variabilità e Mutabilità (1912) by Corrado Gini," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 10(3), pages 421-443, September.
    7. Dag W Aksnes & Nicoline Frølich & Stig Slipersæter, 2008. "Science policy and the driving forces behind the internationalisation of science: The case of Norway," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(6), pages 445-457, July.
    8. Hagen, Nils T., 2013. "Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 784-791.
    9. Marianne Gauffriau & Peder Olesen Larsen, 2005. "Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(1), pages 85-93, July.
    10. Corrado Gini, 2005. "On the measurement of concentration and variability of characters," Metron - International Journal of Statistics, Dipartimento di Statistica, Probabilità e Statistiche Applicate - University of Rome, vol. 0(1), pages 1-38.
    11. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    12. João M. Fernandes, 2014. "Authorship trends in software engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 257-271, October.
    13. Benoît Godin, 2006. "On the origins of bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 109-133, July.
    14. Aksnes, Dag W. & Schneider, Jesper W. & Gunnarsson, Magnus, 2012. "Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 36-43.
    15. Quentin L. Burrell, 2005. "Measuring similarity of concentration between different informetric distributions: Two new approaches," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 704-714, May.
    16. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 785-793, September.
    17. Peder Olesen Larsen & Markus Ins, 2010. "The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 575-603, September.
    18. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    2. Pär Sundling, 2023. "Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2737-2762, May.
    3. Mads P. Sørensen & Jesper Wiborg Schneider, 2017. "Studies of national research performance: A case of ‘methodological nationalism’ and ‘zombie science’?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 132-145.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Pär Sundling, 2023. "Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2737-2762, May.
    3. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    4. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 310-317.
    5. Jesper W. Schneider & Thed Leeuwen & Martijn Visser & Kaare Aagaard, 2019. "Examining national citation impact by comparing developments in a fixed and a dynamic journal set," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 973-985, May.
    6. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 872-894.
    7. Hagen, Nils T., 2014. "Reversing the byline hierarchy: The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 618-627.
    8. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    9. Zhai, Li & Yan, Xiangbin, 2022. "A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    10. João M. Fernandes & Paulo Cortez, 2020. "Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications: a bibliometric study for 27 scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2773-2792, December.
    11. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Song, Min, 2021. "A network embedding-based scholar assessment indicator considering four facets: Research topic, author credit allocation, field-normalized journal impact, and published time," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    12. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    13. Sandro Tarkhan-Mouravi, 2020. "Traditional indicators inflate some countries’ scientific impact over 10 times," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 337-356, April.
    14. Nykl, Michal & Campr, Michal & Ježek, Karel, 2015. "Author ranking based on personalized PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 777-799.
    15. William H. Walters & Esther Isabelle Wilder, 2015. "Worldwide contributors to the literature of library and information science: top authors, 2007–2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 301-327, April.
    16. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2019. "Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 804-816.
    17. Potter, Ross W.K. & Szomszor, Martin & Adams, Jonathan, 2020. "Interpreting CNCIs on a country-scale: The effect of domestic and international collaboration type," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Jeffrey Demaine, 2022. "Fractionalization of research impact reveals global trends in university collaboration," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2235-2247, May.
    19. João M. Fernandes, 2014. "Authorship trends in software engineering," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 257-271, October.
    20. Xin Gu & Karen Blackmore, 2017. "Quantitative study on Australian academic science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1009-1035, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:9:y:2015:i:3:p:629-641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.