Science is becoming increasingly more interdisciplinary, giving rise to more diversity in the areas of expertise within research labs and groups. This also have brought changes to the role researchers in scientific works. As a consequence, multi-authored scientific papers have now became a norm for high quality research. Unfortunately, such a phenomenon induces bias to existing metrics employed to evaluate the productivity and success of researchers. While some metrics were adapted to account for the rank of authors in a paper, many journals are now requiring a description of the specific roles of each author in a publication. Surprisingly, the investigation of the relationship between the rank of authors and their contributions has been limited to a few studies. By analyzing such kind of data, here we show, quantitatively, that the regularity in the authorship contributions decreases with the number of authors in a paper. Furthermore, we found that the rank of authors and their roles in papers follows three general patterns according to the nature of their contributions, such as writing, data analysis, and the conduction of experiments. This was accomplished by collecting and analyzing the data retrieved from PLoS ONE and by devising an entropy-based measurement to quantify the effective number of authors in a paper according to their contributions. The analysis of such patterns confirms that some aspects of the author ranking are in accordance with the expected convention, such as the fact that the first and last authors are more likely to contribute more in a scientific work. Conversely, such analysis also revealed that authors in the intermediary positions of the rank contribute more in certain specific roles, such as the task of collecting data. This indicates that the an unbiased evaluation of researchers must take into account the distinct types of scientific contributions

Several characteristics of written texts have been inferred from statistical analysis derived from networked models. Even though many network measurements have been adapted to study textual properties at several levels of complexity, some textual aspects have been disregarded. In this paper, we study the symmetry of word adjacency networks, a well-known representation of text as a graph. A statistical analysis of the symmetry distribution performed in several novels showed that most of the words do not display symmetric patterns of connectivity. More specifically, the merged symmetry displayed a distribution similar to the ubiquitous power-law distribution. Our experiments also revealed that the studied metrics do not correlate with other traditional network measurements, such as the degree or betweenness centrality. The effectiveness of the symmetry measurements was verified in the authorship attribution task. Interestingly, we found that specific authors prefer particular types of symmetric motifs. As a consequence, the authorship of books could be accurately identified in 82.5% of the cases, in a dataset comprising books written by 8 authors. Because the proposed measurements for text analysis are complementary to the traditional approach, they can be used to improve the characterization of text networks, which might be useful for applications such as identification of topical words and information retrieval.

Principal component analysis (PCA) is often applied for analyzing data in the most diverse areas. This work reports, in an accessible and integrated manner, several theoretical and practical aspects of PCA. The basic principles underlying PCA, data standardization, possible visualizations of the PCA results, and outlier detection are subsequently addressed. Next, the potential of using PCA for dimensionality reduction is illustrated on several real-world datasets. Finally, we summarize PCA-related approaches and other dimensionality reduction techniques. All in all, the objective of this work is to assist researchers from the most diverse areas in using and interpreting PCA.