Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The author byline is an indispensable component of a scientific paper. Some journals have added contribution lists for each paper to provide detailed information of each author’s role. Many papers have explored, respectively, the byline and contribution lists. However, the relationship between the two remains unclear. We select three prominent general medical journals: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and PLOS Medicine (PLOS). We analyze the relationship between the author byline and contribution lists using four indexes. Four main findings emerged. First, the number, forms, and names of contribution lists significantly differed among the three journals, although they adopted the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Second, a U-shaped relationship exists between the extent of contribution and author order: the participation levels in contribution lists were highest for first authors, followed by last and second authors, and then middle authors with the lowest levels. Third, regarding the consistency between author order in the contribution list and byline, every contribution category has a high consistency in JAMA and Annals, while PLOS shows a low consistency, in general. Fourth, the three journals have a similar distribution for the first authors in the contribution category; the first author in the byline contributes the highest proportion, followed by the middle and second authors, and then the last author with the lowest proportion. We also develop recommendations to modify academic and writing practice: implement structured cross-contribution lists, unify formats and standards of contribution lists, draft the author contribution criteria in the social sciences and humanities, and consider author contribution lists in scientific evaluation.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2013). Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: The importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline. Scientometrics, 97(3), 779–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhabue, E., & Lautenbach, E. (2010). “Equal” contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(11), 868–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausloos, M. (2013). A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: The co-author core. Scientometrics, 95(3), 895–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baerlocher, M. O., Gautam, T., Newton, M., & Tomlinson, G. (2009). Changing author counts in five major general medicine journals: Effect of author contribution forms. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(8), 875–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 55(4), 174–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T., Anić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA, 292(1), 86–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G. H., Kulkarni, A. V., Devereaux, P. J., Leece, P., Bajammal, S., et al. (2014). Perceptions of authors’ contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1049–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelvecchi, D. (2015). Physics paper sets record with more than 5000 authors. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567.

  • Chambers, R., Boath, E., & Chambers, S. (2001). The A to Z of authorship: Analysis of influence of initial letter of surname on order of authorship. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 323(7327), 1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., Khatib, F., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Lee, J., Beenen, M., et al. (2010). Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature, 466(7307), 756–760.

    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(1), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, J. P. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., Guns, R., & Rousseau, R. (2013). Measuring co-authors’ contribution to an article’s visibility. Scientometrics, 95(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frische, S. (2012). It is time for full disclosure of author contributions. Nature, 489(7417), 475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawrylewski, A. (2007). Bringing order to authorship. Scientist, 21, 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, N. T. (2014). Reversing the byline hierarchy: The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors. Journal of Informetrics, 8(3), 618–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, B., Ding, Y., & Yan, E. (2012). Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, S. S., Song, H. H., Baik, J. H., Jung, S. L., Park, S. H., Choi, K. H., et al. (2003). Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: Analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology 1. Radiology, 226(1), 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICMJE. (2013). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.

  • Igou, E. R., & van Tilburg, W. A. (2015). Ahead of others in the authorship order: Names with middle initials appear earlier in author lists of academic articles in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivaniš, A., Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2008). Quantification of authors’ contributions and eligibility for authorship: Randomized study in a general medical journal. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(9), 1303–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JAMA. (2016). JAMA instructions for authors. http://jama.jamanetwork.com.ezproxy.lib.uwm.edu/public/instructionsForAuthors.aspx.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Diesner, J. (2014). A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation. Scientometrics, 101(1), 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmulski, M. (2012). The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 639–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozmaa, E., Burlinga, M., von Coburgb, Y., & Heinenb, K. (2014). Authorship: How to decide the order of authors on the byline? Current Medical Research and Opinion, 30, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, H., & Kretschmer, T. (2007). Lotka’s distribution and distribution of co-author pairs’ frequencies. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 308–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D. A. (2010). Who’s on first? Listing authors by relative contribution trumps the alphabet. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(01), 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., Sun, Y. M., Wu, F. X., Yang, L. Q., Lu, Z. J., & Yu, W. F. (2013). Equal contributions and credit: An emerging trend in the characterization of authorship in major anaesthesia journals during a 10-yr period. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2012). Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 557–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Ávila, D., Smiraglia, R., Lee, H. L., & Fox, M. (2015). What is an author now? Discourse analysis applied to the idea of an author. Journal of Documentation, 71(5), 1094–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marušić, A., Bates, T., Anić, A., & Marušić, M. (2006). How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: A randomized study in a general medical journal. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 22(6), 1035–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. J., Neff, K. L., Rethlefsen, M. L., & Kallmes, D. F. (2010). Effects of author contribution disclosures and numeric limitations on authorship trends. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 85(10), 920–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, C. D. (2015). Digital badges aim to clear up politics of authorship. Nature, 526(7571), 145–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol, 5(1), e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 988–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by Humanities and Social Science Foundation by the Ministry of Education of China (16YJA870011) and Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of PR China (2014094).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Siluo Yang

  2. School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA

    Dietmar Wolfram

  3. School of Economics and Management, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100024, China

    Feifei Wang

Authors
  1. Siluo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dietmar Wolfram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feifei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siluo Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Wolfram, D. & Wang, F. The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals. Scientometrics 110, 1273–1296 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation