IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v96y2013i1d10.1007_s11192-012-0905-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Du Jian

    (Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College)

  • Tang Xiaoli

    (Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:96:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0905-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4
    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/s11192-012-0905-4?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. 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.
    2. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Rüdiger Mutz & Hans‐Dieter Daniel, 2008. "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," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(5), pages 830-837, March.
    4. Ash Mohammad Abbas, 2011. "Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 107-131, July.
    5. Michael Schreiber, 2009. "A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1274-1282, June.
    6. Pablo D. Batista & Mônica G. Campiteli & Osame Kinouchi, 2006. "Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 179-189, July.
    7. Sune Lehmann & Andrew D. Jackson & Benny E. Lautrup, 2006. "Measures for measures," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7122), pages 1003-1004, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Gangan Prathap, 2011. "The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 239-244, February.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol, 2011. "Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 291-299, October.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Jung C. Shin, 2011. "How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: Fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1146-1155, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Mott Greene, 2007. "The demise of the lone author," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7173), pages 1165-1165, December.
    17. Tianzhu Tao & Lulong Bo & Fei Wang & Jinbao Li & Xiaoming Deng, 2012. "Equal contributions and credit given to authors in anesthesiology journals during a 10-year period," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 1005-1010, June.
    18. Pauline Mattsson & Carl Johan Sundberg & Patrice Laget, 2011. "Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 99-105, April.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. Kissan Joseph & David N. Laband & Vivek Patil, 2005. "Author Order and Research Quality," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(3), pages 545-555, January.
    22. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 567-579, November.
    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. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    2. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    3. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    4. 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.
    5. Maryam Okhovati & Azam Bazrafshan & Morteza Zare & Mina Moradzadeh & Ali Mohammad Mokhtari, 2016. "Research Performance Measures and the Moderating Role of Faculty Characteristics in Epidemiology," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(5), pages 1-72, May.
    6. Carla Mara Hilário & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Daniel Martínez-Ávila & Dietmar Wolfram, 2023. "Authorship order as an indicator of similarity between article discourse and author citation identity in informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5389-5410, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    4. Karpov, Alexander, 2014. "Equal weights coauthorship sharing and the Shapley value are equivalent," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 71-76.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Zhai, Li & Yan, Xiangbin, 2022. "A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    8. Anna Tietze & Philip Hofmann, 2019. "The h-index and multi-author hm-index for individual researchers in condensed matter physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 171-185, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Hagen, Nils T., 2013. "Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 784-791.
    11. Yannick Berker, 2018. "Golden-ratio as a substitute to geometric and harmonic counting to determine multi-author publication credit," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 839-857, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    14. Christoph Steinbrüchel, 2019. "A citation index for principal investigators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 305-320, January.
    15. Siying Li & Huawei Shen & Peng Bao & Xueqi Cheng, 2021. "$$h_u$$ h u -index: a unified index to quantify individuals across disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3209-3226, April.
    16. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Qiao Zheng & Wei Cai, 2021. "A new method of co-author credit allocation based on contributor roles taxonomy: proof of concept and evaluation using papers published in PLOS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7561-7581, September.
    17. Fenghua Wang & Ying Fan & An Zeng & Zengru Di, 2019. "A nonlinear collective credit allocation in scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1655-1668, June.
    18. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    19. Shaon Sahoo, 2016. "Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 489-504, August.
    20. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    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:96:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-012-0905-4. 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.