Abstract
Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to fund and evaluate scientific research. Since the number of authors in a paper and the number of has increased it is difficult to determine the individual contribution of authors. Suggested approaches include the study of author position or the corresponding author. Our findings show that the corresponding author is most likely to appear first and then last in the byline. The results are dependent on number of authors in a paper and national differences exist. This underscores the need to take into account both the number of authors on a paper and their position in the byline to be accurate when measuring author contribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.
Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature, 436, 900.
Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., et al. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ, 314, 1009–1012.
Buehring, G. C., Buehring, J. E., & Gerard, P. D. (2007). Lost in citation: Vanishing visibility of senior authors. Scientometrics, 72(3), 459–468.
Burman, K. D. (1982). Hanging from the masterhead––reflection on authorship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 97, 602–605.
Drenth, J. P. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. JAMA, 280, 219–221.
Gaeta, T. J. (1999). Authorship: “law” and order. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6(4), 297–301.
Gomez-Alonso, J. (2004). Author! Author! JAMA, 292, 1815.
ICMJE. (1997). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA, 277, 927–934.
Kennedy, D. (2003). Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science, 301, 733.
Moed, H. F. (2009). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74, 153–161.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Reisenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? JAMA, 264, 1857.
Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails––a proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278, 579–585.
Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA, 271, 438–442.
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.
Yank, V., & Rennie, D. (1999). Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in the lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130, 661–670.
Zitt, M., & Teixeira, N. (1996). Science macro-indicators: Some aspects of OST experience. Scientometrics, 35(2), 209–222.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C.J. & Laget, P. Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics 87, 99–105 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0310-9