IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i5d10.1007_s11192-022-04315-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals

Author

Listed:
  • Edson Melo Souza

    (Universidade Nove de Julho)

  • Jose Eduardo Storopoli

    (Universidade Nove de Julho)

  • Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves

    (Universidade Nove de Julho)

Abstract

How can we represent scientific contributions in articles through categories? The scientific contributions’ identification in articles is relevant with regard to issues such as authorship credit, transparency, and responsibility. The major medical journals have adopted the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to indicate the contributions in publications. However, the nomenclature of these contributions is different for each one, making it difficult to identify them when compared between journals. We analyze contributions list from 2024 articles with 20,098 authors, published in three mainstream medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and PLoS Medicine. This study presents two main findings. First, a system grouping scientific contributions with seven categories divided into two groups: (1) Theory; and (2) Methodology and Logistics. Theory is composed of the following contributions: Study Concept, Study Supervision, Critical Revision and Funding and/or Support. While Methodology and Logistics have: Original Draft, Statistical Analysis, and Data Collection. Second, the major contributions are related to the categories related to the theoretical (Theory) argument of the articles, showing that these authors are the most experienced. Already Methodology and Logistics are essential to the application of theoretical concepts and support, representing substantial contributions. Thus, the grouping of the proposed categories can help authors to identify and indicate their contributions in articles more clearly, balancing the ethical issues related to the attribution of authorship to researchers. We also present a equivalence table to contribution categories between the three journals analyzed in this study.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04315-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04315-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-022-04315-8
    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/s11192-022-04315-8?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. 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.
    3. John Horn, 1965. "A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 30(2), pages 179-185, June.
    4. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2014. "How do you define and measure research productivity?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1129-1144, November.
    5. Philippe Mongeon & Elise Smith & Bruno Joyal & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, September.
    6. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "The impact of publications from mainland China on the trends in alphabetical authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 865-879, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Francesco Rosati, 2013. "Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 779-795, December.
    9. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Gianluca Murgia, 2016. "The combined effects of age and seniority on research performance of full professors," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 301-319.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Carla Mara Hilário & Daniel Martínez-Ávila & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Dietmar Wolfram, 2018. "Authorship in science: A critical analysis from a Foucauldian perspective," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 63-72.
    14. Diego R. Amancio & Osvaldo N. Oliveira jr & Luciano F. Costa, 2015. "Topological-collaborative approach for disambiguating authors’ names in collaborative networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 465-485, January.
    15. Glenn D. Walters, 2016. "Adding authorship order to the quantity and quality dimensions of scholarly productivity: evidence from group- and individual-level analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 769-785, February.
    16. Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    17. Jinseok Kim & Jinmo Kim & Jason Owen-Smith, 2019. "Generating automatically labeled data for author name disambiguation: an iterative clustering method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 253-280, January.
    18. Weeks, William B & Wallace, Amy E & Kimberly, B.C.Surott, 2004. "Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(9), pages 1949-1954, November.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Yu-Wei Chang, 2019. "Definition of authorship in social science journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(2), pages 563-585, February.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    6. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    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. 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.
    14. Simoes, Nadia & Crespo, Nuno, 2020. "Self-Citations and scientific evaluation: Leadership, influence, and performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Vicenç Hernández-González & Josep Maria Carné-Torrent & Carme Jové-Deltell & Álvaro Pano-Rodríguez & Joaquin Reverter-Masia, 2022. "The Top 100 Most Cited Scientific Papers in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health Category of Web of Science: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-24, August.
    18. Thijs Devriendt & Mahsa Shabani & Karim Lekadir & Pascal Borry, 2022. "Data sharing platforms: instruments to inform and shape science policy on data sharing?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3007-3019, June.
    19. 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.
    20. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Luz Moreno-Solano, 2023. "Improving our understanding of open access: how it relates to funding, internationality of research and scientific leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4651-4676, August.

    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:127:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s11192-022-04315-8. 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.