, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 865–879 | Cite as

The impact of publications from mainland China on the trends in alphabetical authorship

  • Xuan Zhen Liu
  • Hui FangEmail author


This paper investigates the impact of burgeoning Chinese publication on academic alphabetical authorship in the 25 subject categories that have the highest percentage of intentionally alphabetical publications. The use of alphabetical authorship is common in the social sciences and humanities, mathematics, and in some physical disciplines. Chinese academic publication has increased rapidly in recent decades (Hong Kong and Macau were excluded from the study because Hong Kong and Macau are much more internationalized than mainland China). However, authors from mainland China do not prefer alphabetical authorship. The increase in publications from mainland China lowers the probability of intentional alphabetical authorship in the natural science and technology subject categories that we examined. In some natural science and technology categories, the influence is strong. But for the social sciences and humanities, the influence is weak, due to the lower share of world publications from mainland China. Yet, in some social science and humanities subject categories such as ‘Economics’, the relative share of publications from mainland China is increasing rapidly, and the results on alphabetical authorship trends will be felt in the near future.


Alphabetical authorship Mainland China Collaboration World share of publications 



The authors thank Dr. Ludo Waltman and the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions. A Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2011CBA00107.


  1. 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
  2. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple Authorship. The contribution of senior authors. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(2), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hagen, N. T. (2010). Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably–not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84, 785–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. He, B., Ding, Y., & Yan, E. (2012). Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 359–367.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. IWCSA Report (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  8. Levitt, J. M., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liang, L., Liu, J., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Name order patterns of graduate candidates and supervisors in Chinese publications: A case study of three major Chinese universities. Scientometrics, 61(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stallings, J., Vance, E., Yang, J., Vannierc, M. W., Liang, J., Pang, L., et al. (2013). Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. PNAS, 110(24), 9680–9685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, H. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang, X., Xu, S., Wang, Z., Peng, L., & Wang, C. (2013). International scientific collaboration of China: Collaborating countries, institutions and individuals. Scientometrics, 95(3), 885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yank, V., & Rennie, D. (1999). Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in The Lancet. Annals of International Medicine, 130(8), 661–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China ranks second in scientific publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(1), 7–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LibraryNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of Electronic Science and EngineeringState Key Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry for Life Science, Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations