JZUS - Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE

Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering 2017 Vol.18 No.2 P.180-194

First and Others credit-assignment schema for evaluating the academic contribution of coauthors

Author(s): Li Weigang
Affiliation(s): TransLab, Department of Computer Science, University of Brasilia, Brasilia-DF 70910-900, Brazil
Corresponding email(s): weigang@unb.br
Key Words: Bibliometrics, Credit of coauthorship, H-index, Informetrics, Scholar information

Share this article to： More <<< Previous Article \|Next Article >>>

Abstract: Credit-assignment schemas are widely applied by providing fixed or flexible credit distribution formulas to evaluate the contributions of coauthors of a scientific publication. In this paper, we propose an approach named First and Others (F&O) counting. By introducing a tuning parameter α and a weight β, two new properties are obtained: (1) flexible assignment of credits by modifying the formula (with the change of α) and applying preference to the individual author by adjusting the weights (with the change of β), and (2) calculation of the credits by separating the formula for the first author from others. With formula separation, the credit of the second author shows an inflection point according to the change of α. The developed theorems and proofs concerning the modification of α and β reveal new properties and complement the base theory for informetrics. The F&O schema is also adapted when considering the policy of ‘first-corresponding-author-emphasis’. Through a comparative analysis using a set of empirical data from the fields of chemistry, medicine, psychology, and the Harvard survey data, the performance of the F&O approach is compared with those of other methods to demonstrate its benefits by the criteria of lack of fit and coefficient of determination.

用于评估共同作者学术贡献的第一和其他合作者信用分配模式

概要：共同作者学术贡献分配模式提供了固定或灵活的信用分配公式，并广泛应用于评估科学出版物共同作者的贡献。本文提出了一种新颖的”第一和其他（First and Others, F&O）合作者”分配模式。通过引入调整参数α和权重β，使得信用分配具备以下新的属性：（1）通过修改公式（调整参数α）或强调单个作者贡献（调整权重β）体现学术贡献分配的灵活性和适用性；（2）将第一作者的贡献与其他作者分开计算，第二作者的贡献会根据α参数的变化，呈现出拐点。文中提出相应定理和证明，揭示了”第一和其他（F&O）合作者”分配模式新的特性，应是对文献计量学基本理论的贡献。F&O模式亦可应用于”强调第一作者学术贡献”的策略。通过对一组来自化学、医学、心理学和哈佛-芝加哥调查数据的应用，F&O模式与其他方法进行了分析比较，若干测定系数的优化显示出本文方法的先进性。

关键词：文献计量学；共同作者合作信用；H指数；信息计量；学者信息

Reference

[1]Abbas, A.M., 2010. Generalized linear weights for sharing credits among multiple authors. arXiv:1012.5477.

[2]Abbas, A.M., 2011. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 88(1):107-131.

[3]Abramo, G., Cicero, T., D’Angelo, C.A., 2012. How important is choice of the scaling factor in standardizing citations J. Informetr., 6(4):645-654.

[4]Assimakis, N., Adam, M., 2010. A new author’s productivity index: p-index. Scientometrics, 85(2):415-427.

[5]Boas, R.P.Jr., 1964. Mathematical authorship. Science, 145(3629):232.

[6]Boxenbaum, H., Pivinski, F., Ruberg, S.J., 1987. Publication rates of pharmaceutical scientists: application of the waring distribution. Drug Metabol. Rev., 18(4):553-571.

[7]Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol. Meth. Res., 21(2):230-258.

[8]Buehring, G.C., Buehring, J.E., Gerard, P.D., 2007. Lost in citation: vanishing visibility of senior authors. Scientometrics, 72(3):459-468.

[9]Caruso, E., Epley, N., Bazerman, M.H., 2006. The costs and benefits of undoing egocentric responsibility assessments in groups. J. Person. Soc. Psychol., 91(5):857-871.

[10]Cole, J.R., Cole, S., 1973. Social Stratification in Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[11]Dong, Y., Johnson, R.A., Chawla, N.V., 2015. Will this paper increase your h-index Scientific impact prediction. Proc. 8th ACM Int. Conf. on Web Search and Data Mining, p.149-158.

[12]Du, J., Tang, X.L., 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.

[13]Du, Y.P., Yao, C.Q., Li, N., 2015. Using heterogeneous patent network features to rank and discover influential inventors. Front. Inform. Technol. Electron. Eng., 16(7): 568-578.

[14]Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., van Hooydonk, G., 2000. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: consequences for evaluation studies. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 51(2):145-157.

[15]Ellwein, L.B., Khachab, M., Waldman, R.H., 1989. Assessing research productivity: evaluating journal publication across academic departments. Acad. Med., 64(6):319-325.

[16]Endersby, J.W., 1996. Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Soc. Sci. Q., 77(2):375-392.

[17]Gauffriau, M., Larsen, P.O., Maye, I., et al., 2007. Publication, cooperation and productivity measures in scientific research. Scientometrics, 73(2):175-214.

[18]Hagen, N.T., 2010. Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably—not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84(3): 785-793.

[19]Hagen, N.T., 2013. Harmonic coauthor credit: a parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. J. Informetr., 7(4):784-791.

[20]He, B., Ding, Y., Yan, E.J., 2012. Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. J. Informetr., 6(3): 359-367.

[21]Hirsch, J.E., 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102(46):16569-16572.

[22]Hodge, S.E., Greenberg, D.A., 1981. Publication credit. Science, 213(4511):950-950.

[23]Hu, X., 2009. Loads of special authorship functions: linear growth in the percentage of ‘‘equal first authors’’ and corresponding authors. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 60(11):2378-2381.

[24]Huang, M.H., Lin, C.S., Chen, D.Z., 2011. Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 62(12):2427-2436.

[25]Kalyane, V.L., Vidyasagar Rao, K., 1995. Quantification of credit for authorship. ILA Bull., 30(3-4):94-96.

[26]Kim, J., Diesner, J., 2014. A network-based approach to coauthorship credit alloction. Scientometrics, 101(1):587-602.

[27]Kim, J., Kim, J., 2015. Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes. J. Informetr., 9(3): 667-673.

[28]Larsen, P.O., 2008. The state of the art in publication counting. Scientometrics, 77(2):235-251.

[29]Lin, C.S., Huang, M.H., Chen, D.Z., 2013. The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J. Informetr., 7(3):611-621.

[30]Lindsey, D., 1980. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: the problem of multiple authorship. Soc. Stud. Sci., 10(2):145-162.

[31]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(1):37-49.

[32]Lukovits, I., Vinkler, P., 1995. Correct credit distribution: a model for sharing credit among coauthors. Soc. Ind. Res., 36(1):91-98.

[33]Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D.V., Ariely, D., 2009. The researcher as a consumer of scientific publications: how do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits Market. Sci., 28(3):589-598.

[34]May, M., Brody, H., 2015. Nature index 2015 global. Nature, 522(7556):S1.

[35]Narin, F., 1976. Evaluative Bibliometrics: the Use of Publication and Citation Analysis in the Evaluation of Scientific Activity. Computer Horizons, Mountain Lakes, p.206-219.

[36]Price, D.S., 1981. Multiple authorship. Science, 212(4498): 986.

[37]Stallings, J., Vance, E., Yang, J., et al., 2013. Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. PNAS, 110(24):9680-9685.

[38]Trueba, F.J., Guerrero, H., 2004. A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2):181-204.

[39]Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M.E., Rand, T.A., et al., 2007. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol., 5(1):e18.

[40]van Hooydonk, G., 1997. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: consequences for the impact of authors. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 48(10):944-945.

[41]Vinkler, P., 1993. Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1):213-230.

[42]Vinkler, P., 2000. Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Curr. Sci., 79(5):602-612.

[43]Waltman, L., 2012. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. J. Informetr., 6(4):700-711.

[44]Waltman, L., 2015. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. arXiv:1507.02099.

[45]Weigang, L., Dantas, I.A., Saleh, A.A., et al., 2015. Influential analysis in micro scholar social networks. Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Social Influence Analysis, p.22-28.

[46]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 Rep., 8(11):988-991.

[47]Xu, J., Ding, Y., Song, M., et al., 2016. Author credit- assignment schemas: a comparison and analysis. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol., 67(8):1973-1989.

[48]Yang, Y., Shan, C., Zhang, S., 2014. Counting methods and economist ranking based on ESI. J. Intell., 33(9):76-82 (in Chinese).

[49]Zhang, C.T., 2009. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Rep., 10(5):416-417.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Similar articles

- Go to

用于评估共同作者学术贡献的第一和其他合作者信用分配模式

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference