Abstract
The order of co-authors in a publication can follow different criteria that vary according to the diversity of structural dynamics of the field. This study proposes a methodology to gain insight into the meaning of each position in the by-line, working with a sample of publications from the Journal of Informetrics, based on the similarity between the discourse of an article and the citation identity of each co-author according to their position in the by-line, evaluated by the bibliographic coupling. In addition, we compare these similarities with the level of the contribution of the author to the essential activities for the development of the published research, also by their position in the by-line. We conclude that, for the analyzed area of informetrics, bibliographic coupling portrays different patterns of participation by the authors, especially in relation to the first author, which are not evaluated by other mechanisms and metrics. Therefore bibliographic coupling provides an objective and quantitative perspective to the assessment of author contributions to collaborative research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The other three themes were: authorship definitions, perceptions and practices; ethical and unethical authorship practices; authorship issues related to collaboration involving the student-supervisor relationship.
References
Abramo, G., & D’angelo, C. A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.07.003
Alvarenga, L. (1998). Bibliometria e arqueologia do saber de Michel Foucault – traços de identidade teóricometodológica. Ciência Da Informação, 27(3), 00. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19651998000300002
Amancio, D. R., Oliveira, O. N., Jr., & Costa, F. L. (2012). On the use of topological features and hierarchical characterization for disambiguating names in collaborative networks. EPL, 99, 48002. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/99/48002
Amancio, D. R., Oliveira, O. N., Jr., & Costa, F. L. (2015). Topological-collaborative approach for disambiguating authors’ names in collaborative networks. Scientometrics, 102, 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1381-9
Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G. H., Kulkarni, A. V., Devereaux, P. J., Leece, P., Bajammal, S., Heels-Ansdell, D., & Busse, J. W. (2014). Perceptions of authors’ contributions are influenced by both by-line order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.006
Bu, Y, Zhang, C., Huang, Y., Sugimoto, C., & Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. (2019). Investigating scientific collaboration through the sequence of authors in the publication by-lines and the diversity of collaborators. G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, H. F. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 2300–2305). Edizioni Efesto.
Burrows, S., & Moore, M. (2011). Trends in authorship order in biomedical research publications. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2011.576613
Cabanac, G. (2011). Accuracy of inter-researcher similarity measures based on topical and social clues. Scientometrics, 87(3), 597–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0358-1
Corrêa, E. A., Jr., Silva, F. N., Costa, L., & d. F., & Amancio D. R. (2017). Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts. Journal of Informetrics, 11, 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.003
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(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z
Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Taylor Graham.
Cronin, B., & Shaw, D. (2002). Identity-creators and image-makers: Using citation analysis and thick description to put authors in their place. Scientometrics, 54(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015628320056
Duffy, M. A. (2017). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and Evolution, 7(21), 8876–8887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3435
Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks. Scientometrics, 55(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020458612014
Fanelli, D. (2020). Pressures to publish: What effects do we see? In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 111–122). The MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). What is an author? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault Reader (pp. 101–120). Pantheon Books.
Fox, C. W., Ritchey, J. P., & Paine, C. E. T. (2018). Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and Evolution, 8(23), 11492–11507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4584
Garfield, E. (1978). The ethics of scientific publication. Essays of an Information Scientist, 40(3), 644–651.
Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field: a course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. [S.l.]: Course handouts.
Grácio, M. C. C. (2020). Análises relacionais de citação para a identificação de domínios científicos. Marília; São Paulo: Oficina Universitária; Cultura Acadêmica.
Hagen, N. T. (2013). Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the by-line hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.005
He, B., Ding, Y., & Yan, E. (2012). Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.001
Hilário, C. M., Martínez-Ávila, D., Grácio, M. C. C., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Authorship in science: A critical analysis from a foucauldian perspective. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx041
Hilário, C. M., Grácio, M. C. C., Martínez-Ávila, D., & Wolfram, D. (2022). ¿Existe una justificación para el orden de los autores en la mención de autoría? Un estudio de caso de la investigación en informetría. Revista Española De Documentación Científica, 45(3), e335. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2022.3.1890
Hjørland, B. (2013). Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Information Processing and Management, 49, 1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2013.07.001
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2017). Defining the role of Authors and contributors. (2017). https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Jian, D., & Xiaoli, T. (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, 96(1), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4
Kessler, M. M. (1965). Comparison of the results of bibliographic coupling and analytic subject indexing. American Documentation, 16(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090160309
Kosmulski, M. (2012). The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 639–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.006
Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046
Laudel, G. (2019). Studying the embeddedness of researchers’ careers: can bibliometric methods help? In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregori, H. F. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 1368–1379). Edizioni Efesto.
Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2014). Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: An empirical investigation. Scientometrics, 98(2), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1083-8
Logan, J. M., Bean, S. B., & Myers, A. E. (2017). Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research? PLoS One, 12(6), e0179956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179956
Lozano, G. A. (2014). Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6
Marušić, A., Bŏsnjak, L., & Jeroňcić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477
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 by-line position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9
Moed, H. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. Springer.
Mongeon, P., Smith, E., Joyal, B., & Larivière, V. (2017). The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship. PLoS One, 12(9), e0184601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184601
Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship? Scientometrics, 109(3), 1939–1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7
Qiu, J. P., Dong, K., & Yu, H.-Q. (2014). Comparative study on structure and correlation among author cooccurrence networks in bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1315-6
Rostaing, H. (1996). La bibliométrie et ses techniques. Tolouse: Ed. Sciences de la Société.
Rousseau, R. (2010). Bibliographic coupling and co-citation as dual notions. In B. Larsen, J. W. Schneider & F. Åström (Eds.) The Janus Faced Scholar: A Festschrift in Honour of Peter Ingwersen special volume of the e-zine of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics vol. 06-S June 2010 (pp.173–183). Det Informationsvidenskabelige Akademi
Ruíz-Pérez, R., Marcos-Cartagena, D., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). La autoría científica en las áreas de ciencia y tecnología: Políticas internacionales y prácticas editoriales en las revistas científicas españolas. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 37(2), e049. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.2.1113
Sandström, U. (2009). Cognitive bias in peer review: a new approach. In B. Larsen & J. Leta (Eds), Proceedings of ISSI 2009 – the 12th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Vol. 2, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 14–17 July 2009, (pp. 742–746). BIREME/PAHO/WHO and Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Silva, E. G., Martínez-Ávila, D., & Gracioso, L. (2017). La no univocidad del concepto de autor desde la perspectiva de Wittgenstein y Foucault. Scire, 23(2), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.54886/scire.v1i2.4438
Smiraglia, R. P. (2011). ISKO 11’s Diverse Bookshelf: An editorial. Knowledge Organization, 38(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2011-3-179
Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 8(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2017.723
Tell me who you cite, and I will tell you who you are. Supreme court citations under regime instability in Argentina. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3487114
Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008
Wang, Q., & Sandström, U. (2015). Defining the role of cognitive distance in the peer review process with an explorative study of a grant scheme in infection biology. Research Evaluation, 24, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv009
White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999%3c::AID-ASI1542%3e3.0.CO;2-T
Wiley, J. (2014). The best practices guidelines on publishing ethics A publisher’s perspective (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Wolfram, D. (2016). The power to influence: An informetric analysis of works of Hope Olson. Knowledge Organization, 43(5), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2016-5-331
Yang, S., Wolfram, D., & Wang, F. (2017). The relationship between the author by-line and contribution lists: A comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0
Youtie, J., Kay, L., & Melkers, J. (2013). Bibliographic coupling and network analysis to assess knowledge coalescence in a research center environment. Research Evaluation, 22(3), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt002
Youtie, J., & Borzeman, B. (2014). Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics, 101(2), 953–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1391-7
Zbar, A., & Frank, E. (2011). Significance of authorship position: An open-ended international assessment. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 341(2), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181f683a1
Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2008). Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: Introducing Author Bibliographic-Coupling Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2070–2086. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20910
Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2014). The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: An author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23027
Funding
This research was funded by CAPES-PrInt (Grant No Project 23745992806-2019-Print-Rpi).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hilário, C.M., Grácio, M.C.C., Martínez-Ávila, D. et al. Authorship order as an indicator of similarity between article discourse and author citation identity in informetrics. Scientometrics 128, 5389–5410 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04791-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04791-6