Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices

Helgesson, Gert

doi:10.1177/1747016119898403

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Esse último aspecto é relevante, pois as disparidades de gênero na ordem de assinaturas dos artigos (byline) tem reflexos na distribuição de créditos e na posição hierárquica entre homens e mulheres na publicação científica, conforme comprovam inúmeros estudos que investigaram essa questão, entre eles os de Maciejovsky, Budescu & Ariely (2009), Helgesson (2020) e Thelwall & Mas-Bleda (2021), Fleishmann & Van Berkel (2021.…”

Section: Gênero Na Ciência: Uma Breve Revisão De Literaturaunclassified

Indicadores de gênero na ciência : estudo bibliométrico da região Norte do Brasil

Maroldi¹,

Lima²,

Hayashi³

et al. 2022

Métricas De La Producción Académica : Evaluación De La Investigación Desde América Latina Y El Caribe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Gênero Na Ciência: Uma Breve Revisão De Literaturaunclassified

Indicadores de gênero na ciência : estudo bibliométrico da região Norte do Brasil

Maroldi¹,

Lima²,

Hayashi³

et al. 2022

Métricas De La Producción Académica : Evaluación De La Investigación Desde América Latina Y El Caribe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not all authorship contracts are ethical or justifiable, so vague contractualism is one way to resolve authorship distribution based on the principles of merit, collegiality, equality and transparency (Smith, 2017). Ultimately, authorship confiders recognition to individuals, so the position of the author might affect author-based metrics, quite unevenly among different fields of study (Helgesson, 2020).…”

Section: Authorship Status and Position And Validation Of Author Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Silva¹

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAuthorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.Design/methodology/approachTo appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.FindingsAcademic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.Originality/valueWithin the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

show abstract

“…If the number of published articles is often used as a measure of professional competence (Smith and Williams-Jones, 2012), the order of authorship maybe even more important, especially when it indicates the level of contribution of each author and, as such, their status and responsibility (Helgesson, 2020; Smith, 2017). López-Bonilla et al (2018), in their study on prolific leaders in Spanish tourism research, point out that the order of signatures can be relevant and a point of conflict, especially if it is considered in determining tenure and promotion for teachers and researchers.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship trends and collaboration patterns in hospitality and tourism research

Ramos-Rodríguez

Sancho

Martínez-Fierro

2021

IJCHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Analyze patterns of co-authorship in hospitality and tourism (H&T) research using bibliometric methods. The purpose of this paper is to answer three questions related to collaborative practices, the number of authors, the order of signatures and the role of the corresponding author. Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on the bibliometric techniques of authorship analyzes published in leading H&T journals. Evaluative techniques provide longitudinal evidence of the evolution of some indicators of authors’ collaboration: the percentage of alphabetized authorships; the percentage of articles were the most relevant author signs in the first, middle or last position; and the position of the corresponding author in the by-line. Findings First, the collaborative nature of H&T research is confirmed; almost 80% of articles in the sample are co-authored. Second, over the past 30 years, the alphabetized signature model has been in decline in this field. Today, about 20% of articles indexed in JCR journals are signed alphabetically. Third, the first author’s placement is less consistent than that of the corresponding author. Practical implications This work provides relevant information on researchers’ authorship habits that may help evaluators assign credit and accountability and avoid malpractice in the authorial assignment. Originality/value This study explores the habits of researchers who collaborate to improve their productivity, impact and reputation. This is often linked to facilitating access to research funding and obtaining recognition from incentive systems. Yet, no research specifically examines trends in signature order or the corresponding author’s role in the H&T field.

show abstract

Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

Indicadores de gênero na ciência : estudo bibliométrico da região Norte do Brasil

Indicadores de gênero na ciência : estudo bibliométrico da região Norte do Brasil

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Authorship trends and collaboration patterns in hospitality and tourism research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About