Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current research performance assessment criteria contribute to some extent to author inflation per publication. Among various indicators for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authors, harmonic counting is relatively superior in terms of calculation, scientific ethics, and application. However, two important factors in harmonic counting are not yet clearly understood. These factors are the perceptions of scientists regarding the (1) corresponding author and (2) equally credited authors (ECAs). We carry out a survey investigation on different perceptions of author position versus contribution among medical researchers with different subfields and professional ranks in China, in order to provide several pieces of evidence on the aforementioned factors. We are surprised to find that researchers with different professional ranks tend to largely acknowledge their own contribution in collaborative research. Next, we conduct an empirical study to measure individual’s citation impact using inflated counts versus harmonic counts. The results indicate that harmonic h-index cannot reflect the high peak of harmonic citations. Therefore, we use (1) harmonic R-index to differentiate authors based on the harmonic citations of each paper belonging to their respective h-cores; and (2) Normalization harmonic (h, R) index as a meaningful indicator in ranking scientists. Using a sample of 40 Ph.D. mentors in the field of cardiac and cardiovascular diseases, harmonic counts can distinguish between scientists who are often listed as major contributors and those regularly listed as co-authors. This method may also discourage unethical publication practices such as ghost authorship and gift authorship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Novelty Search is to appraise the novelty of a research proposal or result by search, investigation and comparison of related bibliographic documents. An analytical report will be offered. The Institute of Medical Information (IMI) and Library, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College (CAMS & PUMC), was designated as one of the national level science and technology novelty search institutes and ranked first in medical field in China.

References

  • Abbas, A. M. (2011). Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 88, 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, A., Cyranoski, D., Jones, N., et al. (2010). Metrics: do metrics matter? Nature, 465, 860–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhabue, E., & Lautenbach, E. (2010). “Equal” contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Annals of Epidemiology, 20, 868–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., Schneider, J. W., & Gunnarsson, M. (2012). Ranking national research systems by citation indicators. A comparative analysis using whole and fractionalised counting methods. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., et al. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H. D. (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, 59, 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, S., & Moore, M. (2011). Trends in authorship order in biomedical research publications. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8, 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castillo, A. (2009). Authorship and bylines. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 30, 1455–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chai, J. C., Hua, P. H., Rousseau, R. et al. (2008). Adaptive pure h-index. In Proceedings of 4th international conference on Webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics, 1–6.

  • Cleary, M., Jackson, D., Walter, G., et al. (2012). Editorial: location, location, location—the position of authors in scholarly publishing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 809–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, 88, 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Zhang, B., Li, Y., et al. (2011). A causational analysis of scholars’ years of active academic careers vis-à-vis their academic productivity and academic influence. Chinese Journal of Library and Information Science, 4, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, L. D. (2011). Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles. Front Psychol, 2, 196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2008). Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1608–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadeel, B. (2009). But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. Faseb Journal, 23, 1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta, T. J. (1999). Authorship: “law” and order. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galam, S. (2011). Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index. Scientometrics, 89, 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganten, D., Semenza, G. L., & Nolte, C. (2009). Fostering trust—J Mol Med’s scientific integrity policy. Journal of Molecular Medicine, 87, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glanzel, W. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index —Comments. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450, 1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS One, 3, e4021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, N. T. (2010a). Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably—not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84, 785–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, N. T. (2010b). Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD? Scientometrics, 85, 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, N. T. (2010c). Harmonic partitioning of authorship credit facilitates bottom-up bibliometric research. In 15th Nordic Workshop on Bibliometrics and Research Policy, 28–29 September 2010 University of Bergen. http://www.ub.uib.no/felles/dok/Bibliometrics-2010/Hagen-Bergen-2010.pdf.

  • Hirsch, J. E. (2010). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics, 85, 741–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X. J. (2009). Loads of special authorship functions: linear growth in the percentage of “Equal First Authors” and corresponding authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 2378–2381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X. J., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36, 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, G. E., Cleary, M., & Walter, G. (2010). Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: the relationship between journal impact factors and accrued citations. Harvard Review Psychiatry, 18, 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B. H., Liang, L. M., Rousseau, R., et al. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 855–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, K., Laband, D. N., & Patil, V. (2005). Author order and research quality. Southern Economic Journal, 71, 545–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444, 1003–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Normalization at the field level: fractional counting of citations (Rejoinder). Journal of Informetrics, 4, 644–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Shin, J. C. (2011). How to evaluate universities in terms of their relative citation impacts: fractional counting of citations and the normalization of differences among disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1146–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2012). Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics, 91, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrina, F. (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: ASM Press.

  • Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87, 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prathap, G. (2011). The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 86, 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators—a protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10, 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2008). To share the fame in a fair way, h(m) modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10, 040201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, M. (2009). A case study of the modified Hirsch index h(m) accounting for multiple coauthors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1274–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, T. Z., Bo, L. L., Wang, F., et al. (2012). Equal contributions and credit given to authors in anesthesiology journals during a 10-year period. Scientometrics, 91, 1005–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. S. J. (2011). Credit where credit’s due: accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics, 89, 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., et al. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5, 13–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2012). Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Laeger and Danish Medical Journal. Danish Medical Journal, 59, A4455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E. (2009). Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas, 62, 109–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. L., Sykes, L., Hemmelgarn, B. R., et al. (2010). Authors’ opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Medical Education, 10, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, J. K., Hua, P., & Rousseau, R. (2007). The pure h-index: calculating an author’s h-index by taking co-authors into account. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 1, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Tang, L., Bo, L. L., et al. (2012). Equal contributions and credit given to authors in critical care medicine journals during a 10-year period. Critical Care Medicine, 40, 967–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. & Yang, J. (2010). Axiomatic quantification of co-authors’ relative contributions. arXiv:1003.3362.

  • Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., et al. (2007). The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Reports, 8, 988–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, P. J. (2012). Too many authors, too few creators. Physics Today, 65, 9–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zbar, A., & Frank, E. (2011). Significance of authorship position: an open-ended international assessment. American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 341, 106–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10, 416–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Hagen Nils T, Yue Weiping, Wu Yishan, Xu Peiyang and Liu Yuxian for improving the research design, linguistic content, data analysis, and logical flow of the manuscript. We would like to thank Li Yang for the help during data collection and examination of the empirical study. This study was supported by the Institute of Medical Information of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 11R0117).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Medical Information and Library, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 10005, China

    Du Jian & Tang Xiaoli

Authors
  1. Du Jian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tang Xiaoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tang Xiaoli.

Additional information

Du Jian and Tang Xiaoli designed the study. Du Jian performed data collection and statistical analysis, and also wrote a first draft of the manuscript that was critically examined by Tang Xiaoli. Tang Xiaoli coordinated the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jian, D., Xiaoli, T. 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 96, 277–295 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation