Abstract
To examine whether primary-citation indexing can be taken as an unbiased representation of all-author indexing, we compared the cited first-author counts (straight counts) with the cited all-author counts (complete counts)in two psychological journals over two publication years. Although rather high correlations were found between straight counts and complete counts, correlations differ with journals of the same discipline, with different publication years of the same journal, and according to seniority of cited authors. No effect of alphabetical name ordering was found. Results are discussed against the background of the possible use of weighting procedures for all-author indexing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. R. Cole, S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1973.
E. Garfield, The 250 most-cited primary authors, 1961–1975. Part III. Each author's most-cited publication, Current Contents, 51 (1977) 5-20.
A. L. Porter, Citation analysis: Queries and caveats, Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 257-267.
J. S. Long, R. Mcginnis, P. D. Allison, The problem of junior-authored papers in constructing citation counts, Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 127-143.
D. Lindsey, Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship, Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980) 145-162.
R. Roy, N. R. Roy, G. G. Johnson, Approximating total citation counts from first author counts and from total papers, Scientometrics, 5 (1983) 117-124.
C. A. Campbell, M. B. M. Campbell, The validity of the Roy approximation for citation analysis, Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 411-416.
Cronin, B., Overfelt, K., Citation-based auditing of academic performance, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (1994) 61-72.
E. Garfield, Citation Indexing — Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. ISI Press, Philadelphia, 1979.
E. Garfield, op. cit. 1979, p. 242/243.
E. Rudd, The effect of alphabetical order of author listing on the careers of scientists, Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 268-269.
J. W. Endersby, Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit, Social Science Quarterly, 77 (1996) 375-392.
P. O. Seglen, The skewness of science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (1992) 628-638.
A. J. Meadows, Communication in Science. Butterworth, London, 1974, p. 199.
M. A. Harsanyi, Multiple authors, multiple problems: a literature review, Library and Information Science Research, 15 (1993) 325-354.
J. S. Long, R. Mcginnis, On adjusting productivity measures for multiple authorship, Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 379-387.
D. Lindsey, Further evidence for adjusting for multiple authorship, Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 389-395.
J. S. Long, R. Mcginnis, Further evidence for adjusting for multiple authorship — reply, Scientometrics, 4 (1982) 397-398.
N. Pravdic, V. Oluic-Vukovic, Distribution of scientific productivity: Ambiguities in the assignment of author rank,Scientometrics, 20 (1991) 131-144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lange, L.L. Citation Counts of Multi-Authored Papers — First-named Authors and Further Authors. Scientometrics 52, 457–470 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014299917063
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014299917063