, Volume 98, Issue 3, pp 2161–2168 | Cite as

Does the multi-authorship trend influence the quality of an article?



In the last few decades, multi-authored articles have increased in different disciplines with increasing instances of authorship abuse although multi-authorship is not always due to undeserving authorship (McDonald et al. in Mayo Clin Proc 85(10):920–927, 2010). It may be necessitated by interdisciplinary research, the evolution of a discipline, or the intention of quality improvement. This article studies the relationship between the authorship and the quality of articles (publications in better impact factor journals or core journals) in the field of Oceanography. The result shows ~75 % increase in the number of authors per article from 1990 to 2009 in the discipline. The increase in authorship correlates not only with the percentage of articles in core journals but also with the mean impact factor (IF) of journals (where the articles were published). The ANOVA study shows that though multi-authorship has no influence on the preference to publish in core journals during the 1990s or 2000s, it does have a significant influence on the preference to publish in high IF journals in both the decades. So these findings establish that in the field of Oceanography, the increase in collaboration would have resulted in more publications in core journals (without any influence of authorship increase) and in better impact factor journals (due to the influence of authorship increase).


Authorship Multiple authorship Co-authorship Impact factor Core journals Journal citation report Publish or perish Oceanography 


  1. Baethge, C. (2008). Publish together or perish. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 105(20), 380–383.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, J. A. C. (2011). Free-riding on power laws: Questioning the validity of the impact factor as a measure of research quality in organization studies. Organization, 18, 449–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnholtz, J. (2008). When authorship isn’t enough: Lessons from CERN on the implications of formal and informal credit attribution mechanisms in collaborative research. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 11(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0011.105.
  5. Bradford, S. C. (1985). Sources of information on specific subjects. Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D., & de Mazancourt, C. (2012). Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science, 338(6110), 1065–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, P. (1999). Policy on papers’ contributors. Nature, 399(6735), 393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C., et al. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26(6), 759–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337(6098), 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kressel, H. Y., & Dixon, A. K. (2011). Where is the honor in honorary authorship? Radiology, 259(2), 324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumar, V., Upadhyay, S., & Medhi, B. (2009). Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: Its use and misuse. Singapore Medical Journal, 50(8), 752–755.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Papatheodorou, S. I., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(6), 546–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reynolds, T. M., & Wierzbicki, A. S. (2004). Does activity in research correlate with visibility? Journal of Clinical Pathology, 57(4), 426–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rieder, S., Bruse, C. S., Michalski, C. W., Kleeff, J., & Friess, H. (2010). The impact factor ranking—a challenge for scientists and publishers. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 395, S69–S73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sacco, W. P., & Milana, S. (1984). Increase in number of authors per article in ten APA journals: 1960–1980. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91(1), 42–46.Google Scholar
  18. Sahu, S. R., & Panda, K. C. (2012). A deductive approach to select or rank journals in multifaceted subject, Oceanography. Scientometrics, 92, 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaban, S., & Aw, T.-C. (2009). Trend towards multiple authorship in occupational medicine journals. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 4(3), doi:10.1186/1745-6673-4-3.
  20. Strange, K. (2008). Authorship, why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology—Cell Physiology, 295(3), C567–C575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2011). The ethics of collaborative authorship. EMBO Reports, 12(9), 889–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, London. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from
  23. Yank, V., & Rennie, D. (1999). Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in the Lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(8), 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIR-National Institute of OceanographyDona PaulaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Library and Information ScienceSambalpur UniversitySambalpurIndia
  3. 3.BerhampurIndia

Personalised recommendations