IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i5d10.1007_s11192-023-04680-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology

Author

Listed:
  • Pär Sundling

    (Umeå University)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between an author's position in the bylines of an article and the research contributions they have made to analyze the validity of five bibliometric counting methods (arithmetic, fractional, geometric, harmonic, and harmonic parabolic author credit allocation) in the field of Chemical Biology. By classifying the tasks found in the author contribution statements of articles published in Nature Chemical Biology according to a three-tiered scheme, it was possible to divide the authors into three types: core-layer authors, middle-layer authors, and outer-layer authors. When ordering the authorships according to the position in the bylines, there is a distinct u-shaped distribution for the share of authors involved in writing the paper or designing the research (i.e., core authors) and for the average number of tasks performed by each author. The harmonic parabolic model best distributes author credit according to the observed empirical data. It also outperforms the other models in predicting which authors are core authors and which are not. The harmonic parabolic model should be the preferred choice for bibliometric exercises in chemical biology and fields with similar practices regarding authorship order.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04680-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04680-y?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. 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.
    2. Frandsen, Tove Faber & Nicolaisen, Jeppe, 2010. "What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 608-617.
    3. Frank J. Trueba & Héctor Guerrero, 2004. "A robust formula to credit authors for their publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 181-204, June.
    4. Alison Abbott & David Cyranoski & Nicola Jones & Brendan Maher & Quirin Schiermeier & Richard Van Noorden, 2010. "Metrics: Do metrics matter?," Nature, Nature, vol. 465(7300), pages 860-862, June.
    5. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rørstad, 2013. "A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 307-320, February.
    6. Karen Seashore Louis & Janet M. Holdsworth & Melissa S. Anderson & Eric G. Campbell, 2008. "Everyday Ethics in Research: Translating Authorship Guidelines into Practice in the Bench Sciences," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 79(1), pages 88-112, January.
    7. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Chi-Shiou Lin & Dar-Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou, 2015. "Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1323-1332, July.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Steven A. Morris & Michel L. Goldstein, 2007. "Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's law," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(12), pages 1764-1782, October.
    13. Hagen, Nils T., 2013. "Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 784-791.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 37-49, April.
    17. Teja Tscharntke & Michael E Hochberg & Tatyana A Rand & Vincent H Resh & Jochen Krauss, 2007. "Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(1), pages 1-2, January.
    18. Xiaojun Hu, 2009. "Loads of special authorship functions: Linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(11), pages 2378-2381, November.
    19. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    20. Siluo Yang & Dietmar Wolfram & Feifei Wang, 2017. "The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1273-1296, March.
    21. G. Van Hooydonk, 1997. "Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 48(10), pages 944-945, October.
    22. Jonas Lindahl & Rickard Danell, 2016. "The information value of early career productivity in mathematics: a ROC analysis of prediction errors in bibliometricly informed decision making," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2241-2262, December.
    23. I. Lukovits & P. Vinkler, 1995. "Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 91-98, September.
    24. Philippe Mongeon & Elise Smith & Bruno Joyal & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.
    25. Mu‐Hsuan Huang & Chi‐Shiou Lin & Dar‐Zen Chen, 2011. "Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(12), pages 2427-2436, December.
    26. Elisabeth Davenport & Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(9), pages 770-773.
    27. Jeremy P. Birnholtz, 2006. "What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1758-1770, November.
    28. Zhang, Yu & Wang, Min & Gottwalt, Florian & Saberi, Morteza & Chang, Elizabeth, 2019. "Ranking scientific articles based on bibliometric networks with a weighting scheme," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 616-634.
    29. 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.
    30. Fredrik Niclas Piro & Dag W. Aksnes & Kristoffer Rørstad, 2013. "A macro analysis of productivity differences across fields: Challenges in the measurement of scientific publishing," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 307-320, February.
    31. Jian Xu & Ying Ding & Min Song & Tamy Chambers, 2016. "Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(8), pages 1973-1989, August.
    32. N. Assimakis & M. Adam, 2010. "A new author’s productivity index: p-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 415-427, November.
    33. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    34. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau & Guido Van Hooydonk, 2000. "Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(2), pages 145-157.
    35. Rodrigo Costas & María Bordons, 2011. "Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 145-161, July.
    36. Nasir Ahmad Aziz & Maarten Pieter Rozing, 2013. "Profit (p)-Index: The Degree to Which Authors Profit from Co-Authors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-8, April.
    37. Du Jian & Tang Xiaoli, 2013. "Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 277-295, July.
    38. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    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. Arjun Prakash & Jeevan John Varghese & Shruti Aggarwal, 2024. "Gender of gender studies: examining regional and gender-based disparities in scholarly publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4471-4493, July.
    2. Aman, Valeria & Besselaar, Peter van den, 2024. "Authorship regulations in performance-based funding systems and publication behaviour – A case study of German medical faculties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).

    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. 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.
    3. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    4. António Osório, 2018. "On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2161-2173, September.
    5. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    6. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    7. Liu, Xuan Zhen & Fang, Hui, 2023. "A geometric counting method adaptive to the author number," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    8. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 909-925, February.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    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. 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.
    13. Aman, Valeria & Besselaar, Peter van den, 2024. "Authorship regulations in performance-based funding systems and publication behaviour – A case study of German medical faculties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    14. 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).
    15. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "The impact of publications from mainland China on the trends in alphabetical authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 865-879, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Hagen, Nils T., 2013. "Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 784-791.
    18. Hsuan-I Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Research contribution pattern analysis of multinational authorship papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1783-1800, April.
    19. Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2019. "Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 804-816.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04680-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.