Golden-ratio as a substitute to geometric and harmonic counting to determine multi-author publication credit
- 366 Downloads
Countless bibliometric indexes have been proposed to assess researchers’ productivities, in particular, in fields where the author sequence is regarded helpful in determining authors’ individual credits. Unfortunately, the most popular h-index ignores author ranks and leads to bias with multi-author publications; and of the many bibliometric counting methods proposed for assigning credit to authors, such as harmonic or geometric counting, none seems to have been widely adopted yet. In this work, I challenge the assumption that the total credit for a publication be equal to 1. This total-credit normalization assumption diminishes first-author credit and may impede adoption of multi-author-aware credit assignment rules. Other than on relative contributions, author credit could be based on variables such as accountability, which remains unchanged for the first (and potentially, the last) author regardless of additional coauthors. Therefore, I study the adequacy of several counting methods for first-author-normalized credit, giving full credit to the first author while also crediting coauthors. Harmonic counting has been shown to agree well with empirical data; however, unlike geometric counting, harmonic counting results in unbounded total credit for a publication with first-author-credit normalization in the limit of many authors. I therefore propose adaptable geometric counting and evaluate how it combines the advantages of harmonic and geometric counting through an additional parameter. I show that the golden ratio is a parameter for geometric counting that agrees as well as harmonic counting with empirical data for total-credit normalization; and I discuss the impact of using adaptable geometric counting with first-author-normalized credit. In particular, the latter features bounded total credits even when full credit is given to first authors. In conclusion, geometric counting with the golden ratio can be used for credit assignment without having to choose a parameter value, yet offers customization potential and can be combined with either normalization assumption.
KeywordsBibliometric counting Coauthor problem Golden ratio Validation
I thank Jessica Mueller and Dr. Benjamin Goldschmidt for critically reading an earlier version of the manuscript, and several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve the focus of this manuscript. The work leading to this publication was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (Grant No. 57178382) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA Grant Agreement No. 605728 (P.R.I.M.E.—Postdoctoral Researchers International Mobility Experience).
- Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science (pp. 21–36). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Measuring the Quality of Scientific Research.Google Scholar
- Council of Science Editors. (2012). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/. Accessed September 21, 2017.
- 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, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:2%3C145::AID-ASI6%3E3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213, 950. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1687033.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated December 2016. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed September 21, 2017.
- Lozano, G. A. (2013). The elephant in the room: Multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers. Current Science, 105, 443–445. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/105/04/0443.pdf.
- Sondow, J., & Weisstein, E. W. (2016). Harmonic number. From MathWorld—A Wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HarmonicNumber.html. Accessed September 21, 2017.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2016). Number of authors per MEDLINE®/PubMed®Citation. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html. Accessed September 21, 2017.
- Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 944–945. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10%3C944::AID-ASI8%3E3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vinkler, P. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science, 79, 602–6012. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/cs/Downloads/article_id_079_05_0602_0612_0.pdf.