, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 587–602 | Cite as

A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation

  • Jinseok Kim
  • Jana Diesner


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.


Coauthor 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.


  1. Beasley, B. W., & Wright, S. M. (2003). Looking forward to promotion: Characteristics of participants in the prospective study of promotion in academia. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(9), 705–710. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20639.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2011). Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective. Scientometrics, 88(1), 145–161. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77(2), 375–392.Google Scholar
  8. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3(12), e4021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hagen, N. T. (2010). Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably—Not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84(3), 785–793.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagen, N. T. (2013). Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 784–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. He, B., Ding, Y., & Yan, E. J. (2012). Mining patterns of author orders in scientific publications. Journal of Informetrics, 6(3), 359–367. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.001.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213(4511), 950.Google Scholar
  13. Hu, X. (2009). Loads of special authorship functions: Linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2378–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hummon, N., & Doreian, P. (1989). Connectivity in a citation network: The development of DNA theory. Social Networks, 11(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10(2), 145–162. doi: 10.1177/030631278001000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0571-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lukovits, I., & Vinkler, P. (1995). Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors. Social Indicators Research, 36(1), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D. V., & Ariely, D. (2008). The researcher as a consumer of scientific publication: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits? Marketing Science, 28(3), 589–598. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1080.0406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J., & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99–105. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(2), 404–409. doi: 10.1073/pnas.021544898.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 5200–5205. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0307545100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oppenheim, C. (1998). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(5), 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Price, D. D. (1981). Multiple authorship. Science, 212(4498), 986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators—A protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10(5), 393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2008.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of coauthorship—Who’s on 1st. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(14), 1857. doi: 10.1001/jama.264.14.1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, H. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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), 13–14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 944–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26(1), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wager, E. (2009). Recognition, reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters. Maturitas, 62(2), 109–112. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wan, J., Hua, P., & Rousseau, R. (2007). The pure h-index: Calculating an author’s h-index by taking co-authors into account. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management, 1(2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wray, K. B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 150–168. doi: 10.1086/338946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Zbar, A., & Frank, E. (2011). Significance of authorship position: An open-ended international assessment. American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 341(2), 106–109. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181f683a1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416–417. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao, D. (2006). Dispelling the myths behind first-author citation counts. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Graduate School of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations