Freeloading in biomedical research

Abstract

The surge in the number of authors per article in the biomedical field makes it difficult to quantify the contribution of individual authors. Conventional citation metrics are typically based on the number of publications and the number of citations generated by a scientist, thereby disregarding the contribution of co-authors. Previously we developed the p-index that estimates the dependency of a scientist on co-authors during their career. In this study we aimed to evaluate the ability of the p-index to identify researchers with a relatively high degree of scientific dependence on co-authors. For this purpose, we retrieved articles, which were rejected for publication in Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis and subsequently published elsewhere. Assuming that authors who were added to a later version of these articles would not fulfill the full authorship criteria, we tested whether these authors showed a larger dependency on co-authors during their scientific career as would be evident from a higher p-index. In accordance with this hypothesis, authors who were added on later versions of articles showed a higher p-index than their peers, indicating an enduring pattern of dependency on other co-authors for publishing their work. This study underscores that questionable authorship practices are endemic to the biomedical research, which calls for alternative methods to evaluate a scientist’s qualities.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Abbas, A. M. (2011). Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics,88(1), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0389-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aziz, N. A., & Rozing, M. P. (2013). Profit (p)-index: the degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE,8(4), e59814. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Batista, P. D., Campiteli, M. G., Kinouchi, O., & Martinez, A. S. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics,68(1), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyer, S., Ikeda, T., Lefort, M. C., Malumbres-Olarte, J., & Schmidt, J. M. (2017). Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: A universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review,2, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Caron, E., & van Eck, N. J. (2014). Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 (pp. 79–86). Leiden: Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gasparyan, A. Y., Akazhanov, N. A., Voronov, A. A., & Kitas, G. D. (2014). Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. Journal of Korean Medical Science,29(11), 1453–1456. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. CMAJ,176(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Imperial, J., & Rodriguez-Navarro, A. (2007). Usefulness of Hirsch’s h-index to evaluate scientific research in Spain. Scientometrics,71(2), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1665-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact. PLoS ONE,3(7), e2778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ivanis, A., Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2008). Quantification of authors’ contributions and eligibility for authorship: Randomized study in a general medical journal. Journal of General Internal Medicine,23(9), 1303–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0599-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kovacs, J. (2013). Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. Journal of Medical Ethics,39(8), 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Luksanapruksa, P., & Millhouse, P. W. (2016). Authorship considerations: What qualifies? Clin Spine Surgery,29(2), 60–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Patience, G. S., Galli, F., Patience, P. A., Boffito D. C. (2018). Intellectuel contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. bioRxiv (e-published ahead of print).

  15. Rahman, M. T., Mac Regenstein, J., Kassim, N. L. A., & Haque, N. (2017). The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper. Journal of Informetrics,11, 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schreiber, M. (2008). To share the fame in a fair way, h(m) modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics,10, 040201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Scott, F. I., McConnell, R. A., Lewis, M. E., & Lewis, J. D. (2012). Increasing complexity of clinical research in gastroenterology: Implications for the training of clinician-scientists. The American Journal of Gastroenterology,107(4), 496–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2011.450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics,18(2), 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tol, R. S. J. (2011). Credit where credit’s due: Accounting for co-authorship in citation counts. Scientometrics,89(1), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0451-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Deangelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. BMJ,343, d6128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang, C. T. (2009). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports,10(5), 416–417. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Lex Bouter, VUmc, for fruitful discussions relating to this manuscript. The authors are also extremely grateful for the indispensable help and assistance by Ms Fee Johnstone and Ms Sofija Gugina (Managing Editors of the Journal of Thrombosis and Hemostasis). NAA was supported by a VENI-grant (#91615080) from the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research and a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship grant from the European Union (Horizon 2020, #701130).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. P. Rozing.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rozing, M.P., van Leeuwen, T.N., Reitsma, P.H. et al. Freeloading in biomedical research. Scientometrics 122, 47–55 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2984-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citation metric
  • Authorship
  • p-Index