Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Leaders are important for scientific groups. Authors of a research paper whose names are listed in the byline first, last, or as the corresponding author are often considered particularly important to that paper. The authorship preferences of scientific group leaders are examined for seven research fields and 11 geographic locations. There are some similarities and differences among research fields and geographic locations in listing group leaders. In the fields of “Mathematics” and “Physics, Particles & Fields”, although the custom is for papers to list authors alphabetically, scientific group leaders from Egypt and Shanghai typically list their names first or last in the byline, the same as group leaders in other research fields. Opposite to the group leaders from other locations, leaders from Egypt often appear as the first authors. Scientific group leaders who are listed first in the byline typically also serve as the corresponding authors. For group leaders who are listed last in the byline, the proportion also serving as corresponding authors changes significantly. Accordingly, the proportion of papers in which group leaders are corresponding authors varies considerably among different research fields and geographic locations. The meaning of authorship for research group leaders is discussed in the end from the perspective of their roles in paper production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akhabue, E., & Lautenbach, E. (2010). “Equal” contributions and credit: An emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(11), 868–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T., Anić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions. Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(1), 86–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. D. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beveridge, C., & Morris, S. (2007). Order of merit. Nature, 448(7152), 508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari, M., Busse, J. W., Kulkarni, A. V., Devereaux, P. J., Leece, P., & Guyatt, G. H. (2004). Interpreting authorship order and corresponding authorship. Epidemiology, 15(1), 125–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 1009–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, M. (1998). The instability of authorship: credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. FASEB Journal, 12(1), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehring, G. C., Buehring, J. E., & Gerard, P. D. (2007). Lost in citation: Vanishing visibility of senior authors. Scientometrics, 72(3), 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909–1918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dance, A. (2012). Authorship: Who’s on first? Nature, 489, 591–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dotson, B., & Slaughter, R. L. (2011). Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 68(18), 1730–1734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship. The contribution of senior authors. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, C. M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112–1142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frandsen, T. V., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., & Kitas, G. D. (2013). Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatology International, 33(2), 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y., Lariviere, V., Macaluso, B., & Robitaille, J. P. (2008). The effects of aging on researchers’ publication and citation patterns. PLoS One, 3(12), e4048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S. (2006). Creative knowledge environments for research groups in biotechnology. The influence of leadership and organizational support in universities and business companies. Scientometrics, 67(1), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S., & Gustafson, M. (1996). Research production in the arts and humanities. A questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics, 37(3), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X. J. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X. J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IWCSA Report. (2012). Report on the international workshop on contributorship and scholarly attribution, May 16, 2012. Harvard University and the Wellcome Trust.

  • Jones, J. W., McCullough, L. B., & Richman, B. W. (2005). The ethics of bylines: Would the real authors please stand up? Journal of Vascular Surgery, 42(4), 816–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmulski, M. (2012). The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 639–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance, W. F. (2006). Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature, 442(7098), 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 90(1), 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Skea J. E. F. (1992). Academic research performance indicators: An assessment of the possibilities. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Scoot, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationhips. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagpaul, P. S., & Gupta, S. P. (1989). Effect of professional competence, managerial role and status of group leaders to R&D performance. Scientometrics, 17(3–4), 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Over, R., & Smallman, S. (1970). Citation idiosyncrasies. Nature, 228(5278), 1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D., & Andrews, F. (1966). Scientists in organisations: Productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pudovkin, A., Kretschmer, H., Stegmann, J., & Garfield, E. (2010). Research evaluation. Part I: Productivity and citedness of a German medical research institution. Scientometrics, 93(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on the first. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(14), 1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savitz, D. A. (1999). What can we infer from author order in epidemiology? American Journal of Epidemiology, 149(5), 401–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strotmann, A., & Zhao, D. (2012). Author name disambiguation: What difference does it make in author-based citation analysis? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(9), 1820–1833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, T. Z., Bo, L. L., Wang, F., Li, J. B., & Deng, X. M. (2012). Equal contributions and credit given to authors in anesthesiology journals during a 10-year period. Scientometrics, 91(3), 1005–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), e18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinther, S., & Rosenberg, J. (2012). Appearance of ghost and gift authors in Ugeskrift for Laeger and Danish Medical Journal. Danish Medical Journal, 59(5), A4455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Tang, L., Bo, L. L., Li, J. B., & Deng, X. M. (2012). Equal contributions and credit given to authors in critical care medicine journals during a 10-yr period. Critical Care Medicine, 40(3), 967–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organisational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 373–391). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10(5), 416–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2011). Counting first, last, or all authors in citation analysis: A comprehensive comparison in the highly collaborative stem cell research field. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 654–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckermann, H. (1968). Patterns of name-ordering among authors of scientific papers: A study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 74(3), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions improving this contribution. This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant 2011CBA00107. A Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Library, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China

    Xuan Zhen Liu

  2. School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Hui Fang

Authors
  1. Xuan Zhen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hui Fang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Fang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, X.Z., Fang, H. Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation. Scientometrics 98, 909–925 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1083-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1083-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation