Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this work is to elucidate the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science by surveying researchers working in the field of Medical Physics. During the first 6 months of 2022, an anonymous survey was disseminated among 956 medical physicists working in Asia, Europe and North America. The survey participants were chosen by using their publications in professional journals. The number of responses to the survey questions varied from 186 (19.5%) to 249 (26%). The obtained responses indicated several important causes of multi-authorship in science. In particular, the respondents indicated the importance of the quid pro quo effect, division of labor, complimentary expertise, and potential bias against 1–2 author papers. The responses also indicated the important role of multi-authorship in developing professional networks and associated career advancement. The responses suggest that besides its potential to significantly increase number of publications, multi-authorship facilitates networking and associated career advancement of researchers. As a result, multi-authorship can be used as a tool to improve chances for promotion and tenure. The negative ramifications of multi-authorship can be dealt with by employing transparent policies to properly assign credit and responsibility for multi-author studies and to restrict number of coauthors except when multi-authorship is justified by the specific needs and/or multidisciplinary nature of the study.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The corresponding author is generally assumed to have overall responsibility for the publication. In many branches of science, the first author is also the corresponding author.

  2. A more comprehensive analysis of the relationship between ANAP and number of citations (which is beyond the scope of our study) should consider the effect of self-citations.

References

  • Abramo, G., & D’Angelo, C. A. (2015). The relationship between the number of authors of a publication, its citations and the impact factor of the publishing journal: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 746–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L., O’Connell, A., & Kiermer, V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing, 32, 71–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, L., Scott, J., Brand, A., Hlava, M., & Altman, M. (2014). Publishing: Credit where credit is due. Nature, 508, 312–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. A., & Boden, S. D. (2008). Ethical considerations of authorship. SAS Journal, 2(3), 155–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W., & Kaserman, D. L. (1988). The rising incidence of co-authorship in economics: Further evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 539–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caon, M. (2017). Multiple authorship of scientific manuscripts. Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 40, 7–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, D., Morales, E., McKiernan, E. C., Schimanski, L. A., Niles, M. T., & Alperin, J. P. (2022). The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0265506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi, S., & Ebrahimi, A. (2020). Ethical challenges around multiple authorship in journal articles. Journal of Archives in Military Medicine, 8(4), e111263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, L. D. (2011). Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(196), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlen, J. A., Siminoff, L. A., Sereika, S. M., & Sutton, L. B. (1997). Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations. JProfNurs., 13(4), 262–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. S., Cobane, G. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. Political Science & Politics, 31(4), 847–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gureyev, V. N., Lakizo, I., & Mazov, N. A. (2019). Unethical authorship in scientific publications (A review of the problem). Scientific and Technical Information Processing., 46(4), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, 51, 162–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2016a). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D. (2016b). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107, 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication Credit. Science, 213, 950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, A. (2001). Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labor Economics, 8, 503–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini, M., Lewis, J., Zwart, H., & Gordijn, B. (2022). An Ethical exploration of increased average number of authors per publication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28, 25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendahl, M. (2013). China’s Publication Bazaar. Science, 342(6162), 1035–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal, A., Cheok, Q., & Nauman, M. M. (2022). Assigning credits to multiple contributors of a scholarly output using arithmetic series. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 12, 1275–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, N., Abola, M. V., Jena, A. B., & Smith, S. E. (2015). Trends in authorship patterns in high-impact radiology publications, 1980–2013. Academic Radiology, 22, 1587–1591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalifa, A. A. (2022). Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties. Ethics Medicine and Public Health, 20, 100735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuld, L., & O’Hagan, J. (2018). Rise of multi-authored papers in economics: Demise of the ‘lone star’ and why? Scientometrics, 114, 1207–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. A. (1932). Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcleod, A. J., & Henderson, G. R. (1984). Bounds for the sample standard deviation. Teaching Statistics, 6(3), 72–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H. (2003). Collaboration and the quality of economics research. Labour Economics, 10(5), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation, American Association of University Professor (AAUP), Collegiality report, 2016

  • 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 and Research Evaluation, 14, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Place, F. (1934). Ghost writing. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 22, 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. E. S. (1981). Multiple authorship. Science, 212, 986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruschak, G., & Hopp, C. (2022). And the credit goes to … - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists. PLoS ONE, 17(5), e0267312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. ICMJE recommendations, 2021, https://www.icmje.org

  • Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters and the two-sided coin. JAMA, 271, 469–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278, 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1997). A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3, 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors of multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA, 271, 438–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffler, R. E., & Harsha, P. D. (1980). Upper and lower bounds for the sample standard deviation. Teaching Statistics, 2(3), 84–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (1994). Gift authorship: A poisoned chalice. BMJ, 309, 1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul-Hus, A., Shi, M., Diller, E., Caudle, K., & Resnik, D. B. (2020). Researchers’ perceptions of ethical authorship distribution in collaborative research teams. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 1995–2022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strub, R. L., & Black, F. W. (1976). Multiple authorship. Lancet, 13(2), 1090–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank E. L. Kuperman for data analysis; S. M. Tomlinson and J. Steinbach for their help in preparing the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any support from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC, 7651 Medical Drive, Hudson, FL, 34667, USA

    Vadim Y. Kuperman & Gerald H. Sokol

  2. George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Gerald H. Sokol

Authors
  1. Vadim Y. Kuperman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald H. Sokol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vadim Y. Kuperman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuperman, V.Y., Sokol, G.H. On the causes and ramifications of multi-authorship in science. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04963-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04963-y

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation