IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v11y2017i2p498-510.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

Author

Listed:
  • Corrêa Jr., Edilson A.
  • Silva, Filipi N.
  • da F. Costa, Luciano
  • Amancio, Diego R.

Abstract

Science is becoming increasingly more interdisciplinary, giving rise to more diversity in the areas of expertise. In such a complex environment, the participation of authors became more specialized, hampering the task of evaluating authors according to their contributions. While some metrics were adapted to account for the order (or rank) of authors in a paper, many journals are now requiring a description of their specific roles in the publication. Surprisingly, the investigation of the relationships between credited contributions and author's rank has been limited to a few studies. Here we analyzed such a kind of data and show, quantitatively, that the regularity in the authorship contributions decreases with the number of authors in a paper. Furthermore, we found that the rank of authors and their roles in papers follow three general patterns according to the nature of their contributions: (i) the total contribution increases with author's rank; (ii) the total contribution decreases with author's rank; and (iii) the total contribution is symmetric, with most of contributions being performed by first and last authors. This was accomplished by collecting and analyzing the data retrieved from PLoS One and by devising a measurement of the effective number of authors in a paper. The analysis of such patterns confirms that some aspects of the author ranking are in accordance with the expected convention, such as the first and last authors being more likely to contribute more diversely in a scientific work. Conversely, such analysis also revealed that authors in the intermediary positions of the rank contribute more in specific roles, such as collecting data. This indicates that the an unbiased evaluation of researchers must take into account the distinct types of scientific contributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Corrêa Jr., Edilson A. & Silva, Filipi N. & da F. Costa, Luciano & Amancio, Diego R., 2017. "Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 498-510.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:498-510
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157716302693
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.003?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. 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.
    2. D. R. Amancio & M. G. V. Nunes & O. N. Oliveira & L. F. Costa, 2012. "Using complex networks concepts to assess approaches for citations in scientific papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 827-842, June.
    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. Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2013. "A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 833-849.
    5. Ludo Waltman & Erjia Yan & Nees Jan Eck, 2011. "A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 301-314, October.
    6. William F. Laurance, 2006. "Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists," Nature, Nature, vol. 442(7098), pages 26-26, July.
    7. B Ian Hutchins & Xin Yuan & James M Anderson & George M Santangelo, 2016. "Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-25, September.
    8. Hennemann, Stefan & Rybski, Diego & Liefner, Ingo, 2012. "The myth of global science collaboration—Collaboration patterns in epistemic communities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 217-225.
    9. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    10. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    11. Silva, Filipi N. & Amancio, Diego R. & Bardosova, Maria & Costa, Luciano da F. & Oliveira, Osvaldo N., 2016. "Using network science and text analytics to produce surveys in a scientific topic," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 487-502.
    12. Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2016. "Quantifying The Life Cycle Of Scholarly Articles Across Fields Of Economic Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1339-1355, April.
    13. Michael C. Wendl, 2007. "H-index: however ranked, citations need context," Nature, Nature, vol. 449(7161), pages 403-403, September.
    14. Amancio, Diego Raphael & Oliveira, Osvaldo Novais & da Fontoura Costa, Luciano, 2012. "Three-feature model to reproduce the topology of citation networks and the effects from authors’ visibility on their h-index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 427-434.
    15. Mott Greene, 2007. "The demise of the lone author," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7173), pages 1165-1165, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Barton H. Hamilton & Jack A. Nickerson & Hideo Owan, 2003. "Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 465-497, June.
    18. Schreiber, Michael, 2015. "Restricting the h-index to a publication and citation time window: A case study of a timed Hirsch index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 150-155.
    19. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Waltman, Ludo, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 102-117.
    20. D. C. Mishra, 2008. "Citations: rankings weigh against developing nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 451(7176), pages 244-244, January.
    21. 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.
    22. Clint D. Kelly & Michael D. Jennions, 2007. "H-index: age and sex make it unreliable," Nature, Nature, vol. 449(7161), pages 403-403, September.
    23. Viana, Matheus P. & Amancio, Diego R. & da F. Costa, Luciano, 2013. "On time-varying collaboration networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 371-378.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Adilson Vital & Diego R. Amancio, 2022. "A comparative analysis of local similarity metrics and machine learning approaches: application to link prediction in author citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 6011-6028, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Yang, Jiansheng & Vannier, Michael W. & Wang, Fang & Deng, Yan & Ou, Fengrong & Bennett, James & Liu, Yang & Wang, Ge, 2013. "A bibliometric analysis of academic publication and NIH funding," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 318-324.
    6. 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.
    7. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2018. "Critical rationalism and the search for standard (field-normalized) indicators in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 598-604.
    8. Xiomara S. Q. Chacon & Thiago C. Silva & Diego R. Amancio, 2020. "Comparing the impact of subfields in scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 625-639, October.
    9. Zhang, Lin & Thijs, Bart & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2011. "The diffusion of H-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 583-593.
    10. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "Globalised vs averaged: Bias and ranking performance on the author level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 299-313.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Paul Wouters & Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2129-2150, December.
    12. Liwei Cai & Jiahao Tian & Jiaying Liu & Xiaomei Bai & Ivan Lee & Xiangjie Kong & Feng Xia, 2019. "Scholarly impact assessment: a survey of citation weighting solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 453-478, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Dunaiski, Marcel & Geldenhuys, Jaco & Visser, Willem, 2019. "On the interplay between normalisation, bias, and performance of paper impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 270-290.
    15. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    16. Yang, Alex Jie & Wu, Linwei & Zhang, Qi & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong, 2023. "The k-step h-index in citation networks at the paper, author, and institution levels," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    17. Salih Selek & Ayman Saleh, 2014. "Use of h index and g index for American academic psychiatry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 541-548, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Miguel A. García-Pérez, 2009. "A multidimensional extension to Hirsch’s h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 779-785, December.
    20. Lutz Bornmann & Alexander Tekles & Loet Leydesdorff, 2019. "How well does I3 perform for impact measurement compared to other bibliometric indicators? The convergent validity of several (field-normalized) indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1187-1205, May.

    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:eee:infome:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:498-510. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.