Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 667-673

  Kim, Jinseok ^a   Kim, Jinmo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b Financial Supervisory Service   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Author contribution; Bibliometrics; Coauthor order; Coauthorship credit; Empirical validation

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION; BIBLIOMETRICS; COAUTHOR ORDER; COAUTHORSHIP; EMPIRICAL VALIDATION;

HARMONIC ANALYSIS;

EID: 84940947109     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: 18755879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Abramo G., D'Angelo C.A., Rosati F. 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. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(1):198-208. 10.1016/j.joi.2012.11.003.
2. Beasley B.W., Wright S.M. Looking forward to promotion: Characteristics of participants in the prospective study of promotion in academia. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2003, 18(9):705-710. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20639.x.
3. Browne M.W., Cudeck R., Bollen K.A., Long J.S. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models 1993, 136-1136. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. A Sage Focus ed. K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.).
4. Carbone V. Fractional counting of authorship to quantify scientific research output 2011, arXiv preprint arXiv:1106.0114.
5. Egghe L., Rousseau R., Van Hooydonk G. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 2000, 51(2):145-157.
6. Frandsen T.F., Nicolaisen J. What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics 2010, 4(4):608-617. 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.010.
7. Hagen N.T. Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably-not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics 2010, 84(3):785-793.
8. Hagen N.T. Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics 2013, 7(4):784-791.
9. He B., Ding Y., Yan E.J. Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(3):359-367. 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.001.
10. Hu X. 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 2009, 60(11):2378-2381.
11. Jian D., Xiaoli T. 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 2013, 96(1):277-295. 10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4.
12. Kim J., Diesner J. A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation. Scientometrics 2014, 101(1):587-602. 10.1007/s11192-014-1253-3.
13. Kim J., Diesner J. Coauthorship networks: A directed network approach considering the order and number of coauthors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015, 10.1002/asi.23361.
14. Lindsey D. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science 1980, 10(2):145-162. 10.1177/030631278001000202.
15. Liu X.Z., Fang H. Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):557-565. 10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.002.
16. Lukovits I., Vinkler P. Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors. Social Indicators Research 1995, 36(1):91-98.
17. Maciejovsky B., Budescu D.V., Ariely D. The researcher as a consumer of scientific publication: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits?. Marketing Science 2008, 28(3):589-598. 10.1287/mksc.1080.0406.
18. Marušić A., Bošnjak L., Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(9):e23477.
19. Mattsson P., Sundberg C.J., Laget P. Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics 2011, 87(1):99-105. 10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9.
20. Oppenheim C. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1998, 49(5):482-1482. 10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(19980415)49:5<482::Aid-Asi11>3.0.Co;2-H.
21. Price D.D. Multiple Authorship. Science 1981, 212(4498):986.
22. Thomas P.A., Diener-West M., Canto M.I., Martin D.R., Post W.S., Streiff M.B. Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine 2004, 79(3):258-264. 10.1097/00001888-200403000-00013.
23. Trueba F.J., Guerrero H. A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics 2004, 60(2):181-204.
24. Van Hooydonk G. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1997, 48(10):944-945. 10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(199710)48:10<944::Aid-Asi8>3.0.Co;2-1.
25. Vinkler P. Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics 1993, 26(1):213-230.
26. Vinkler P. Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science-Bangalore 2000, 79(5):602-612.
27. Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics 2012, 6(4):700-711. 10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008.
28. Wren J.D., Kozak K.Z., Johnson K.R., Deakyne S.J., Schilling L.M., Dellavalle R.P. The write position: A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. Embo Reports 2007, 8(11):988-991. 10.1038/sj.embor.7401095.
29. Wuchty S., Jones B.F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316(5827):1036-1039. 10.1126/science.1136099.