IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/arabix/y9spq.html

Contributorships are not weighable to be equal

Author

Listed:
  • Moustafa, Khaled

Abstract

A new trend to assign some authors as 'first co-authors' is noticeable in scientific publications as a statement highlighting that two or more authors 'contributed equally' to a reported work. However, the requirements of scientific rigor, honesty, and accuracy in academic standards make such statements invalid and, thus, should be avoided. A potential solution is to specify the role of each co-author, from study conception to communication of results, and let readers judge the importance of each contribution by themselves. Alternatively, authors should demonstrate how they contributed 'equally' when they are defined as 'equal contributors'.

Suggested Citation

  • Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Contributorships are not weighable to be equal," arabixiv.org y9spq, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:arabix:y9spq
    DOI: 10.31221/osf.io/y9spq
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5a70d0d2e37c060010fa9298/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31221/osf.io/y9spq?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Sarah Heeffer & Bart Thijs, 2016. "A triangular model for publication and citation statistics of individual authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 857-872, May.
    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. Elizabeth Brown & Maria Antonieta Vega Castillo & Rita Hordósy, 2025. "How ‘International’ Are Sociology Journals? Analysis of Stated Aims and Editorial Board Networks," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 30(4), pages 922-941, December.
    2. Vadim Y. Kuperman & Gerald H. Sokol, 2024. "On the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2205-2225, April.
    3. Claudia N. González Brambila & José Luis Olivares-Vázquez, 2021. "Patterns and evolution of publication and co-authorship in Social Sciences in Mexico," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2595-2626, March.
    4. Yu-Wei Chang, 2021. "Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3373-3391, April.
    5. Arnauld Bessagnet & Joan Crespo & Jerome Vicente, 2023. "How is the literature on Digital Entrepreneurial Ecosystems structured? A socio-semantic network approach," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2320, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2023.
    6. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    7. Laura Bowering Mullen, 2024. "Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1_suppl), pages 21582440231, April.
    8. Jordi Ardanuy & Llorenç Arguimbau & Ángel Borrego, 2022. "Social sciences and humanities research funded under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): a long-term assessment of projects, acknowledgements and publications," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Maria Victoria Guzmán-Sánchez & Maybel Piñón-Lora & Elio Atenógenes Villaseñor-García & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2018. "Characterization of the Cuban biopharmaceutical industry from collaborative networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1533-1548, June.
    10. Guy J. Abel & Raya Muttarak & Valeria Bordone & Emilio Zagheni, 2019. "Bowling Together: Scientific Collaboration Networks of Demographers at European Population Conferences," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 543-562, July.
    11. Gómez-Ferri, Javier & González-Alcaide, Gregorio & LLopis-Goig, Ramón, 2019. "Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    12. Andrea Mervar & Maja Jokić, 2023. "Correction: Core-periphery nexus in the EU social sciences: bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4165-4165, July.
    13. Lukas Kuld & John O'Hagan, 2017. "Rise of Multi-authored Papers in Economics: Demise of the 'Lone Star' and Why?," Trinity Economics Papers tep0517, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    14. 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.
    15. Ozerturk, Saltuk & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2021. "Credit attribution and collaborative work," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. Fabio Ashtar Telarico & Franc Mali & Aleš Žiberna, 2024. "Revealing dynamic co-authorship structure in the social sciences through blockmodeling: the Slovenian case (1991–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5635-5672, September.
    17. Katerina Anne Lai & Gaurav Saxena & Peter J. Allen, 2022. "Research performance of academic psychologists in the United Kingdom," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4139-4166, July.
    18. Keziban Orbay & Anne M. Fernando & Metin Orbay, 2025. "Short, But How Short? Analysis of Educational Research Titles," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(1), pages 21582440251, February.
    19. Ekaterina Dyachenko & Iurii Agafonov & Katerina Guba & Alexander Gelvikh, 2024. "Independent Russian medical science: is there any?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5577-5597, September.
    20. Hamid R. Jamali & Alireza Abbasi, 2023. "Gender gaps in Australian research publishing, citation and co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2879-2893, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:arabix:y9spq. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.