IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i3d10.1007_s11192-024-04928-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Jakab

    (Paracelsus Medical University)

  • Eva Kittl

    (Paracelsus Medical University)

  • Tobias Kiesslich

    (Paracelsus Medical University
    University Hospital Salzburg, Salzburger Landeskliniken (SALK), Paracelsus Medical University)

Abstract

Publishing in academic journals is primary to disseminate research findings, with authorship reflecting a scientist’s contribution, yielding academic recognition, and carrying significant financial implications. Author numbers per article have consistently risen in recent decades, as demonstrated in various journals and fields. This study is a comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in biomedical papers from the NCBI PubMed database between 2000 and 2020, utilizing the Entrez Direct (EDirect) E-utilities to retrieve bibliometric data from a dataset of 17,015,001 articles. For all publication types, the mean author number per publication significantly increased over the last two decades from 3.99 to 6.25 (+ 57%, p

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Jakab & Eva Kittl & Tobias Kiesslich, 2024. "How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1299-1328, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04928-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04928-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-04928-1
    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/s11192-024-04928-1?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. Cat Ferguson & Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky, 2014. "Publishing: The peer-review scam," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 480-482, November.
    2. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    3. Mott Greene, 2007. "The demise of the lone author," Nature, Nature, vol. 450(7173), pages 1165-1165, December.
    4. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou, 2015. "Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1323-1332, July.
    5. João M. Fernandes & Paulo Cortez, 2020. "Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications: a bibliometric study for 27 scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2773-2792, December.
    6. 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.
    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. Abdelghani Maddi & Lesya Baudoin, 2022. "The quality of the web of science data: a longitudinal study on the completeness of authors-addresses links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6279-6292, November.
    2. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    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. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2016. "The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 509-524, February.
    7. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2012. "Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 37-49, April.
    9. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.
    10. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2016. "The first cut is the deepest: repeated interactions of coauthorship and academic productivity in Nobel laureate teams," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 509-524, February.
    11. António Osório, 2018. "On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2161-2173, September.
    12. Aman, Valeria & Besselaar, Peter van den, 2024. "Authorship regulations in performance-based funding systems and publication behaviour – A case study of German medical faculties," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    13. Liu, Xuan Zhen & Fang, Hui, 2023. "A geometric counting method adaptive to the author number," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    14. 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.
    15. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2019. "The collaboration behavior of top scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 215-232, January.
    16. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    17. Cathelijn J F Waaijer & Benoît Macaluso & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    18. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    19. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan Porter & Nils Newman, 2024. "How does regulatory uncertainty shape the innovation process? Evidence from the case of nanomedicine," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 262-302, February.
    20. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, 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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-024-04928-1. 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.