Abstract
Collaboration among researchers is an essential component of the scientific process, playing a particularly important role in findings with significant impact. While extensive efforts have been devoted to quantifying and predicting scientific impact, the question of how credit is allocated to coauthors of publications with multiple authors within a complex evolving system remains a long-standing problem in scientometrics. In this paper, we propose a dynamic credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors’ contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community, incorporating a reinforcement mechanism and a power-law temporal relaxation function. The citation data from American Physical Society are used to validate our method. We find that the proposed method can significantly outperform the state-of-the-art method in identifying the authors of Nobel-winning papers that are credited for the discovery, independent of their positions in the author list. Furthermore, the proposed methodology also allows us to determine the temporal evolution of credit between coauthors. Finally, the predictive power of our method can be further improved by incorporating the author list prior appropriately.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., & Altman, M. (2014). Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508(7496), 312–313.
Biggs, J. (2008). Allocating the credit in collaborative research. Political Science and Politics, 41(1), 246–247.
Campbell, P. (1999). Policy on papers’ contributions. Nature, 399(6735), 393.
De Clippel, G., Moulin, H., & Tideman, N. (2008). Impartial division of a dollar. Journal of Economic Theory, 139(1), 176–191.
Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
Evans, J. A. (2013). Future science. Science, 342(6154), 44–45.
Foulkes, W., & Neylon, N. (1996). Redefining authorship. Relative contribution should be given after each author’s name. British Medical Journal, 312(7043), 1423.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.
Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and criterion analysis. PLOS One, 3(12), e4021.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.
Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the H index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(49), 19193–19198.
Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213(4511), 950.
Kaur, J., Radicchi, F., & Menczer, F. (2013). Universality of scholarly impact metrics. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 924–932.
Kennedy, D. (2003). Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science, 301(5634), 733.
Kim, J., & Diesner, J. (2015). Distortive effects of initial-based name disambiguation on measurements of large-scale coauthorship networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23489.
Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444(7122), 1003–1004.
Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(suppl 1), 5200–5205.
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., Markines, B., & Vespignani, A. (2009). Diffusion of scientific credits an dthe ranking of scientist. Physical Review E Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 80(5 Pt 2), 056103.
Redner, S. (2005). Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review. Physics Today, 58, 49.
Sekercioglu, C. H. (2008). Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science, 322(5900), 371.
Shen, H. W., & Barabási, A. L. (2014). Collective credit allocation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(34), 12325–12330.
Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), 596.
Stallings, J., Vance, E., Yang, J. S., Vannier, M. W., Liang, J. M., Pang, L. J., et al. (2013). Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(24), 9680–9685.
Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. Z. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in authorbased citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1820–1833.
Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLOS Biology, 5(1), e18.
Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154), 127–132.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416–417.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant Number 2015RC031 and the State Visiting Scholar Funds from the China Scholarship Council under Grant Number 201607095027. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers CNS-1513939 and CNS-1408944.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bao, P., Zhai, C. Dynamic credit allocation in scientific literature. Scientometrics 112, 595–606 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2335-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2335-9