IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v110y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-016-2239-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals

Author

Listed:
  • Siluo Yang

    (Wuhan University)

  • Dietmar Wolfram

    (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)

  • Feifei Wang

    (Beijing University of Technology)

Abstract

The author byline is an indispensable component of a scientific paper. Some journals have added contribution lists for each paper to provide detailed information of each author’s role. Many papers have explored, respectively, the byline and contribution lists. However, the relationship between the two remains unclear. We select three prominent general medical journals: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and PLOS Medicine (PLOS). We analyze the relationship between the author byline and contribution lists using four indexes. Four main findings emerged. First, the number, forms, and names of contribution lists significantly differed among the three journals, although they adopted the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Second, a U-shaped relationship exists between the extent of contribution and author order: the participation levels in contribution lists were highest for first authors, followed by last and second authors, and then middle authors with the lowest levels. Third, regarding the consistency between author order in the contribution list and byline, every contribution category has a high consistency in JAMA and Annals, while PLOS shows a low consistency, in general. Fourth, the three journals have a similar distribution for the first authors in the contribution category; the first author in the byline contributes the highest proportion, followed by the middle and second authors, and then the last author with the lowest proportion. We also develop recommendations to modify academic and writing practice: implement structured cross-contribution lists, unify formats and standards of contribution lists, draft the author contribution criteria in the social sciences and humanities, and consider author contribution lists in scientific evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2239-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0
    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/s11192-016-2239-0?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., 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.
    2. Kosmulski, Marek, 2012. "The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 639-644.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Sebastian Frische, 2012. "It is time for full disclosure of author contributions," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7417), pages 475-475, September.
    6. Seth Cooper & Firas Khatib & Adrien Treuille & Janos Barbero & Jeehyung Lee & Michael Beenen & Andrew Leaver-Fay & David Baker & Zoran Popović & Foldit players, 2010. "Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7307), pages 756-760, August.
    7. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    8. He, Bing & Ding, Ying & Yan, Erjia, 2012. "Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 359-367.
    9. M. Ausloos, 2013. "A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 895-909, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Kretschmer, Hildrun & Kretschmer, Theo, 2007. "Lotka's distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 308-337.
    13. Liu, Xuan Zhen & Fang, Hui, 2012. "Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 557-565.
    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. Felix Bracht & Dennis Verhoeven, 2021. "Air pollution and innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1817, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    3. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Female citation impact superiority 1996–2018 in six out of seven English‐speaking nations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(8), pages 979-990, August.
    4. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Dietmar Wolfram, 2018. "Difference in the impact of open-access papers published by China and the USA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 1017-1037, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Xiaoyu Cai & Tao Han, 2020. "Analysis of the division of labor in China’s high-quality life sciences research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1077-1094, November.
    8. Chao Lu & Yingyi Zhang & Yong‐Yeol Ahn & Ying Ding & Chenwei Zhang & Dandan Ma, 2020. "Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1162-1178, October.
    9. 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.
    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.
    11. 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.

    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. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    2. Zhai, Li & Yan, Xiangbin, 2022. "A directed collaboration network for exploring the order of scientific collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    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. 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.
    5. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    6. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    12. Maria-Victoria Uribe-Bohorquez & Juan-Camilo Rivera-Ordóñez & Isabel-María García-Sánchez, 2023. "Gender disparities in accounting academia: analysis from the lens of publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 3827-3865, July.
    13. Díaz-Faes, Adrián A. & Costas, Rodrigo & Galindo, M. Purificación & Bordons, María, 2015. "Unravelling the performance of individual scholars: Use of Canonical Biplot analysis to explore the performance of scientists by academic rank and scientific field," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 722-733.
    14. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    15. Simoes, Nadia & Crespo, Nuno, 2020. "Self-Citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    16. 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.
    17. M. Teresa Antonio-García & Irene López-Navarro & Jesús Rey-Rocha, 2014. "Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1747-1779, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Thelwall, Mike & Bailey, Carol & Makita, Meiko & Sud, Pardeep & Madalli, Devika P., 2019. "Gender and research publishing in India: Uniformly high inequality?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 118-131.
    20. 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.

    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:110:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-016-2239-0. 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.