A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation
- 567 Downloads
We introduce and evaluate a novel network-based approach for determining individual credit of coauthors in multi-authored papers. In the proposed model, coauthorship is conceptualized as a directed, weighted network, where authors transfer coauthorship credits among one another. We validate the model by fitting it to empirical data about authorship credits from economics, marketing, psychology, chemistry, and biomedicine. Also, we show that our model outperforms prior alternatives such as fractional, geometric, arithmetic, and harmonic counting in generating coauthorship credit allocations that approximate the empirical data. The results from the empirical evaluation as well as the model’s capability to be adapted to domains with different norms for how to order authors per paper make the proposed model a robust and flexible framework for studying substantive questions about coauthorship across domains.
KeywordsCoauthor order Authorship credit Coauthor networks Bibliometrics
The authors are grateful to Professor Boris Maciejovsky for providing the dataset used in this paper and Professor Nils T. Hagen for invaluable advice on the reusable data collection. We also would like to thank anonymous reviewers who helped us to improve our paper with their insightful comments.
- Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77(2), 375–392.Google Scholar
- Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213(4511), 950.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Thomas, P. A., Diener-West, M., Canto, M. I., Martin, D. R., Post, W. S., & Streiff, M. B. (2004). Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Academic Medicine, 79(3), 258–264. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200403000-00013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position—A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors. EMBO Reports, 8(11), 988–991. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar