Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 260, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 778-788

  de Mesnard, Louis ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ BOURGOGNE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

Author keywords

1 n rule; Academic publishing; OR in scientometrics; Parallelization; Productivity gains

Indexed keywords

PRODUCTIVITY;

1/N RULE; ACADEMIC PUBLISHING; PARALLELIZATIONS; PRODUCTIVITY GAIN; SCIENTOMETRICS;

EDUCATION;

EID: 85009944742     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.009     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Aad, G., ATLAS CollaborationCMS Collaboration, Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at s=√7 and 8 tev with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Physical Review Letters, 114, 2015, 191803 Published 14 May, 2015.
2. Brandão, A.A., Small versus big teamwork: E-letter response to Stefan Wuchty et al. Science, 2007 Online: 02 august 2007.
3. Buchanan, J.M., An economic theory of clubs. Economica, New Series 32:125 (1965), 1–14.
4. Calero, C., Buter, R., Valdes, C.C., Noyons, E., How to identify research groups using publication analysis: An example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 66:2 (2006), 365–376.
5. Cardillo, A., Scellato, S., Latora, V., A topological analysis of scientific coauthorship networks. Physica A 372 (2006), 333–339.
6. Durden, G.C., Perri, T.J., Coauthorship and publication efficiency. Atlantic Economic Journal 23:1 (2003), 69–76.
7. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., Hooydonk, G.V., Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51:2 (2000), 145–157.
8. Fox, M.F., Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science 12:3/4 (1983), 54–61.
9. Galam, S. (2010). Integrating multiple coauthorship in the quantitative evaluation of individual scientific records. Arxiv: 1007.3708v1. Downloadable at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3708.
10. Galenson, D., Co-Authoring Advanced Art, 2007, NBER Working Paper No. 13484, NBER Program(s): LS.
11. Gordon, M.D., A critical reassessment of inferred relations between multiple authorship, scientific collaboration, the production of papers and their acceptance for publication. Scientometrics 2:3 (1980), 193–201.
12. Harsanyi, M.A., Multiple authors, multiple problems - bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration: a literature review. Library and Information Science Review 15 (1993), 325–354.
13. Hartley, J., Refereeing and the single author. Journal of Information Science 31:3 (2005), 251–256.
14. Hirsch, J.E., An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:46 (2005), 16569–16572.
15. Hirsch, J.E., An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:46 (2009), 16569–16572 Downloadable at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3144.
16. Hou, H., Kretschmer, H., Liu, Z., The structure of scientific collaboration networks in scientometrics. Scientometrics 75:2 (2008), 189–202.
17. Hsu, J., Huang, D.-W., Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics 86 (2011), 317–324.
18. Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R., What is research collaboration?. Research Policy 26 (1997), 1–18.
19. Krapf, M., Age and complementarity in scientific collaboration. Empirical Economics 49:2 (2015), 751–781.
20. Laband, D., A qualitative test of journal discrimination against women. Eastern Economic Journal 13:2 (1987), 149–153.
21. List, J., Bailey, C., Euzent, P., Martin, T., Academic economists behaving badly? a survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Economic Inquiry 39 (2001), 162–170.
22. McDonald, S., Kam, J., Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Information Science 33:6 (2007), 702–717.
23. McDowell, J.M., Obsolescence of knowledge and career publication profiles: Some evidence of differences among fields in costs of interrupted careers. American Economic Review 72:4 (1982), 752–768.
24. de Mesnard, L., On hochberg et al.’ s ‘the tragedy of the reviewer commons’. Scientometrics 84:3 (2010), 903–917.
25. Nabout, J.C., Parreira, M.R., Teresa, F.B., Carneiro, F.M., Cunha, H.F.d., de Souza Ondei, L., et al. Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): the trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics 102:1 (2015), 357–364.
26. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.J., Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics 36:3 (1996), 293–310.
27. Narin, F., Stevens, K., Whitlaw, E.S., Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics 21:3 (1991), 313–323.
28. Nash, J., Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics 54:2 (1951), 286–295.
29. O'Brien, J., Baerlocher, M.O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Noble, J., Honorary coauthorship: Does it matter?. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal 60:5 (2009), 231–236.
30. Prathap, G., The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship. Scientometrics 86 (2011), 239–244.
31. Remus, W., Strategies for a publish or perish world or why journals are unreadable. Interfaces 8:1 (1977), 64–69.
32. Rey-Rocha, J., Garzon-Garcia, B., Martin-Sempere, M.-J., Scientists’ performance and consolidation of research teams in biology and biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics 69:2 (2006), 183–212.
33. Ricardo, D., On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 1817, London: John Murray, Albemarle-Street.
34. Royle, J., Coles, L., Williams, D., Evans, P., Publishing in international journals. An examination of trends in Chinese co-authorship. Scientometrics 71:1 (2007), 59–86.
35. Sahu, S.R., Panda, K.C., Does the multi-authorship trend influence the quality of an article?. Scientometrics 98:3 (2013), 2161–2168.
36. m modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10, 2008 040201-1-9.
37. m-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics 2 (2008), 211–216.
38. Schreiber, M., How to modify the g-index for multi-authored manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics 4 (2010), 42–54.
39. Subramanyam, K., Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science 6:1 (1983), 33–38.
40. Tullock, G., Efficient rent-seeking. Buchanan, J., et al. (eds.) Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, 1980, College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 97–112.
41. Wang, Y., Wu, Y., Pan, Y., Ma, Z., Rousseau, R., Scientific collaboration in China as reflected in co-authorship. Scientometrics 62:2 (2005), 183–198.
42. Wilson, J.M., Gantt charts: A centenary appreciation. European Journal of Operational Research 149:2 (2003), 430–437.
43. Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., Uzzi, B., The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:5827 (2007), 1036–1039.
44. Yoshikane, F., Nozawa, T., Tsuji, K., Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors’ roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas. Scientometrics 68:3 (2006), 643–655.
45. Zi-Lin, H., International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60:10 (2009), 2151–2164.