On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications

Osório, António

doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2815-6

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The notions in Osório and Bornmann (2019) are individual effort, credit, value of a collaboration, and the value when successful (published or accepted). Egghe, Rousseau, and Van Hooydonk (2000) and more recently Osório (2018) also address various credit systems. I use the notation from Osório (2018), since Osório and Bornmann (2019) assume equal credit to all authors on an article.…”

Section: Background and Notationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbitrage opportunities in publication and ghost authors

Smolinsky

2020

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Background and Notationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbitrage opportunities in publication and ghost authors

Smolinsky

2020

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The other coauthors usually have complementary contributions to assist in undertaking the research. Recently, there is a trend of an increasing size of authorship and more frequent crossinstitutional collaborations (Osório, 2018), and thus makes the leadership role of the corresponding author more pronounced (Wang, Wu, & Pan, 2014).…”

Section: Research Leadership In Research Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research leadership flow determinants and the role of proximity in research collaborations

Qingpeng

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing the leadership in research is important to revealing the interaction pattern and organizational structure through research collaboration. This research defines the leadership role based on the corresponding author's affiliation, and presents the first quantitative research on the factors and evolution of 5 proximity dimensions (geographical, cognitive, institutional, social, and economic) of research leadership. The data to capture research leadership consist of a set of multi-institution articles in the fields of "Life Sciences & Biomedicine," "Technology," "Physical Sciences," "Social Sciences," and "Humanities & Arts" during 2013-2017 from the Web of Science Core Citation Database. A Tobit regression-based gravity model indicates that the mass of research leadership of both the leading and participating institutions and the geographical, cognitive, institutional, social, and economic proximities are important factors for the flow of research leadership among Chinese institutions. In general, the effect of these proximities for research leadership flow has been declining recently. The outcome of this research sheds light on the leadership evolution and flow among Chinese institutions, and thus can provide evidence and support for grant allocation policies to facilitate scientific research and collaborations.

show abstract

“…Their approach is very practical and can deal with a large variety of particular cases in terms of authors' ordering. Osório (2018) presents a detailed study on the properties and limitations of this and other counting methods.…”

Section: The Case Of N Ordered Authorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The value and credits of n-authors publications

Bornmann

Osório

2019

Journal of Informetrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration among researchers is becoming increasingly common, which raises a large number of scientometrics questions for which there is not a clear and generally accepted answer. For instance, what value should be given to a two-author or threeauthor publication with respect to a single-author publication? This paper uses axiomatic analysis and proposes a practical method to compute the expected value of an n-authors publication that takes into consideration the added value induced by collaboration in contexts in which there is no prior or ex-ante information about the publication's potential merits or scientific impact. The only information required is the number of authors. We compared the obtained theoretical values with the empirical values based on a large dataset from the Web of Science database. We found that the theoretical values are very close to the empirical values for some disciplines, but not for all. This observation provides support in favor of the method proposed in this paper. We expect that our findings can help researchers and decisionmakers to choose more effective and fair counting methods that take into account the benefits of collaboration.

show abstract

On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Arbitrage opportunities in publication and ghost authors

Arbitrage opportunities in publication and ghost authors

Research leadership flow determinants and the role of proximity in research collaborations

The value and credits of n-authors publications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About