Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 1527–1547 | Cite as

Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?

  • Ch PeiduEmail author
Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

Authorship and authorship ordering in the by-line have been gaining interest in the recent past. Unlike authorship in single-author which is an open-book, authorship in multi-author papers have been murky in certain aspects especially, in ordering, among others. Authorship implies responsibility and so, should not order in by-line reflect measures of responsibility on the basis of their contribution? But it hasn’t been that way especially, the authors in middle order and last place, they are addled positions. However, the position of first author is undisputable because of one’s relative contribution or responsibility. On this note, I propose dominance index (DI) and dominance co-efficiency (DC) of a scientist or an author. These measures are on based on the number of times as first author, the total number of multi-authored papers and the total number of times of co-authors. The average number of times as first author is the dominance score and the number of times as first author divided by mean of co-authors gives dominance co-efficiency. These measures are put to test on faculty members of a Department of a University to show how the indexes would look like. The data sets are collected from their biodata and supplemented from SCOPUS database. The results obtained seems quite tenable. But the usage of these indexes is left to the discretion of evaluators. Some pertinent implications and questions such as, the significance of a paper, omission of single-authored papers, the role of corresponding author, the practice of noblesse oblige, the effect of team size, the regulation of authorship and ordering in the by-line are discussed. Further, an alternative measure of dominance is also given on the sine quo non that order of authors in the by-line is strictly according to relative measure of contribution. In this case, the dominance index is a measure of an author’s standing or prominence among his co-authors based on the ranking or position in the ascription of all the co-authored papers. It gives relative rank or position of an author or scientist among one’s co-author(s) of the times of co-authoring based on the ascription of all the paper of significance. Dominance co-efficiency is the product of paper of significance and dominance index. A negative or low DI or DC scores of a scientist or an author do not mean that the scientific or research contribution is low or insignificant. On the other hand, a high DI and DC scores of a scientist or an author do not necessarily mean that his or her scientific contribution is excellent or important.

Keywords

Authorship Authorship ordering By-line Dominance Index Dominance co-efficiency 

References

  1. Bhattacharya, Surajit. (2010). Authorship issue explained. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery,43(2), 233–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boxenbaum, H., Pivinski, F., & Ruberg, S. J. (1987). “Publication rates of pharmaceutical scientists: Application of the waring distribution. Drug Metabolism Reviews,18, 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cattell, R. B., & Drevdahl, J. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16 P.F.) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and of the general population. British Journal of Psychology,46(Nov), 248–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author Scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics,20, 345–361.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colman, A. M., Dhillion, D., & Coulthard, B. (1995). “A bibliometric evaluation of the research performance of British University Politics Departments: Publications in leading journals. Scientometrics,32, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cozzarelli, N. R. (2004). Responsible authorship of papers in PNAS. PNAS,101(29), 10495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CASRAI. CRediT. https://www.casrai.org/credit.html. Accessed 15 July 2019.
  8. Dance, A. (2012). Who’s on first? Nature,498(Sept), 591–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I-The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics,1, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1979a). “Studies in scientific collaboration: Part II–scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics,1, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1979b). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part III–professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics,1, 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Price, D. J. S., & Beaver, D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist,21, 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dizon, L. B., & Sadorra, M. S. M. (1995). Pattern of publication by the staff of an International Fisheries Research Center. Scientometrics,32, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egghe, Leo, Rousseau, Ronald, & Van Hooydonk, Guido. (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
  15. Ellwein, L. B., Khachab, M., & Waldman, R. H. (1989). Assessing research productivity: Evaluating journal publication across academic departments. Academic Medicine,64, 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EPA. (2016). “Scientific integrity: Best practices for designating authorship.” https://www.epa.gov/osa/authorship-best-practices.
  17. Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature,450(7173), 1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holcombe, A. O. (2019). “Contributorship, not authorship: Use credit to indicate who did what.” PsyArXiv. April 18.  https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huth, J. Edward. (1986). Guidelines on authorship of medical papers. Annals of Internal Medicine,104, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy,26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laudel, Grit. (2002). What do we measure by authorship? Research Evaluation,11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lukovits, I., & Vinkler, P. (1995). Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among co-authors. Social Indicators Research,36, 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNutt, M. K., et al. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. PNAS,115(11), 2557–2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mesnard, L. (2017). Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses. European Journal of Operation Research, 260, 778–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborne, J. W., & Holland, A. (2009). What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,14, 15.Google Scholar
  27. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship? Scientometrics (Sept.).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Regaldo, A. (1995). Multiauthor papers on the rise. Science,268, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? JAMA,264(14), 1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sato, W. (2016). Scientists’ personality, values, and well-being. SpringerPlus,5, 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist,13, 596–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, J. A. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics,60, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multi-authored publications. PLoS Biology,5(1), e18.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multi-authored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. JASIST,48, 944–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vinkler, P. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicator. Current Science,79, 602–612.Google Scholar
  37. Vinkler, P. (2010). Research contribution and share of credit of individual authors. The evaluation of research by scientometric indicators. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Library and Information ScienceUniversity of DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations