An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing

There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication. In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors

Does your surname affect the citability of your publications?

Prior investigations have offered contrasting results on a troubling question: whether the alphabetical ordering of bylines confers citation advantages on those authors whose surnames put them first in the list. The previous studies analyzed the surname effect at publication level, i.e. whether papers with the first author early in the alphabet trigger more citations than papers with a first author late in the alphabet. We adopt instead a different approach, by analyzing the surname effect on citability at the individual level, i.e. whether authors with alphabetically earlier surnames result as being more cited. Examining the question at both the overall and discipline levels, the analysis finds no evidence whatsoever that alphabetically earlier surnames gain advantage. The same lack of evidence occurs for the subpopulation of scientists with very high publication rates, where alphabetical advantage might gain more ground. The field of observation consists of 14,467 scientists in the sciences

Women in contemporary cancer research

Despite recent advances, gender inequality persists in many scientific fields, including medicine. Thus far, no study has extensively analyzed the gender composition of contemporary researchers in the oncology field. We examined 40 oncological journals (Web of Science, ONCOLOGY category) with different impact factors (Q1-Q4) and extracted all the articles and reviews published during 2015 17, in order to identify the gender of their authors. Our data showed that women represent about 38% of all the authorships, both in articles and reviews. In relative terms, women are overrepresented as first authors of articles (43.8%), and clearly underrepresented as last or senior authors (<30%). This double pattern, also observed in other medical fields, suggests that age, or more specifically, seniority, may play some role in the gender composition of cancer researchers. Examining the pattern of collaboration, an interesting finding was observed: the articles signed by a woman in the first or in the last position roughly showed gender parity in the byline. We found also some differences in the content of the articles depending on which gender occupies the first and last positions of the authorships

Large publishing consortia produce higher citation impact research but co-author contributions are hard to evaluate

This paper introduces a simple agglomerative clustering method to identify large publishing consortia with at least 20 authors and 80% shared authorship between articles. Based on Scopus journal articles 1996-2018, under these criteria, nearly all (88%) of the large consortia published research with citation impact above the world average, with the exceptions being mainly the newer consortia for which average citation counts are unreliable. On average, consortium research had almost double (1.95) the world average citation impact on the log scale used (Mean Normalised Log Citation Score). At least partial alphabetical author ordering was the norm in most consortia. The 250 largest consortia were for nuclear physics and astronomy around expensive equipment, and for predominantly health-related issues in genomics, medicine, public health, microbiology and neuropsychology. For the health-related issues, except for the first and last few authors, authorship seem to primary indicate contributions to the shared project infrastructure necessary to gather the raw data. It is impossible for research evaluators to identify the contributions of individual authors in the huge alphabetical consortia of physics and astronomy, and problematic for the middle and end authors of health-related consortia. For small scale evaluations, authorship contribution statements could be used, when available

A review of the literature on citation impact indicators

Citation impact indicators nowadays play an important role in research evaluation, and consequently these indicators have received a lot of attention in the bibliometric and scientometric literature. This paper provides an in-depth review of the literature on citation impact indicators. First, an overview is given of the literature on bibliographic databases that can be used to calculate citation impact indicators (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar). Next, selected topics in the literature on citation impact indicators are reviewed in detail. The first topic is the selection of publications and citations to be included in the calculation of citation impact indicators. The second topic is the normalization of citation impact indicators, in particular normalization for field differences. Counting methods for dealing with co-authored publications are the third topic, and citation impact indicators for journals are the last topic. The paper concludes by offering some recommendations for future research

La distribution ‘juste’ de la signature savante dans les collaborations de recherche multidisciplinaire en sciences de la santé

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé.Authorship of scientific publications is a means of recognizing both a researcher’s contribution to a paper as well as their responsibility for the integrity of their work. Various approaches to author order may be used to rank individuals and convey the extent of their contribution. For example, authors may be listed by decreasing level of contribution, whereby most credit and responsibility are allocated to the first authors (common in the health sciences), or they may be named in alphabetical order, giving equal recognition to all (common in the social sciences). There are also “rules of thumb” or preferred practices that exist in the respective disciplines or research fields (e.g., corresponding author first, Principal Investigator last). In the case of multidisciplinary health research, differing norms and practices regarding authorship distribution may be held by the respective team members; and, this can give rise to disagreement and even conflict within research teams. Although researchers and scholarly organizations agree that authorship should be distributed “fairly”, a shared understanding or consensus as to what constitutes fairness, as well as its practical implementation in multidisciplinary research collaborations, remains a significant challenge. This thesis proposes a conceptual ethical framework for the fair distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary health sciences research. At the outset, the various methods recommended by journals, learned societies, as well as in the academic literature to distribute authorship are critically reviewed; issues that may impede or complicate fair authorship distribution in multidisciplinary research are highlighted; these include, for example, power differentials, conflicts of interests, and conflicting disciplinary norms and cultures. The analysis will show that current universal normative authorship guidelines are overly broad, and therefore, are insufficient to effectively resolve many of the diverse issues that are often specific to differing contexts of research. As will be discussed, the limitations of such guidelines are particularly significant in the case of global health collaborations that involve researchers from low and middle income countries and those from high income countries. A theoretical approach influenced by T.M. Scanlon’s Contractualism is proposed as a means of achieving the flexibility needed for the diversity of multidisciplinary research contexts; mutual agreement and reasonability are used to determine whether ethical principles are “fair”. Four central and interconnected principles – desert, just recognition, transparency and collegiality – are presented as the conceptual foundation to support the development of a process for the fair distribution of authorship. This authorship distribution process integrates the detailed research tasks commonly used in “contributorship” taxonomies to delineate individual duties and roles in the research project and subsequent publication. Contributions are then compared and valued more efficiently to determine authorship order while promoting fairness in multidisciplinary health sciences research

A Century of American Economic Review

Using information collected from American Economic Review publications of the last 100 years, we try to provide answers to various questions: Which are the top AER publishing institutions and countries? Which are the top AER papers based on citation success? How frequently is someone able to publish in AER? How equally is citation success distributed? Who are the top AER publishing authors? What is the level of cooperation among the authors? What drives the alphabetical name ordering? What are the individual characteristics of the AER authors, editors, editorial board members, and referees? How frequently do women publish in AER? What is the relationship between academic age, publication performance, and citation success? What are the paper characteristics? What influences the level of technique used in articles? Do connections have an influence on citation success? Who receives awards? Can awards increase the probability of publishing in AER at a later stage?American Economic Review, Publishing Economics, Rankings, Cooperation, Authors, Editors, Board Members, Referees, Connections, Awards, Paper Characteristics, Economic History, History of Economic Thought

A Century of American Economic Review

Using information collected from American Economic Review publications of the last 100 years, we try to provide answers to various questions: Which are the top AER publishing institutions and countries? Which are the top AER papers based on citation success? How frequently is someone able to publish in AER? How equally is citation success distributed? Who are the top AER publishing authors? What is the level of cooperation among the authors? What drives the alphabetical name ordering? What are the individual characteristics of the AER authors, editors, editorial board members, and referees? How frequently do women publish in AER? What is the relationship between academic age, publication performance, and citation success? What are the paper characteristics? What influences the level of technique used in articles? Do connections have an influence on citation success? Who receives awards? Can awards increase the probability of publishing in AER at a later stage?American Economic Review, publishing economics, rankings, cooperation,authors, editors, board members, referees, connections, awards, paper characteristics, economic history, history of economic thoug

Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill

This study attempts to detect papers originating from the Russia-based paper mill ‘International Publisher’ LLC. A total of 1,063 offers to purchase co-authorship on a fraudulent papers published from 2019 to mid-2022 on the 123mi.ru website were analysed. This study identifies at least 451 papers that are potentially linked to the paper mill, including one preprint, a duplication paper and 16 republications of papers erroneously published in hijacked journals. Evidence of suspicious provenance from the paper mill is provided: matches in title, number of co-authorship slots, year of publication, country of the journal, country of a co-authors and similarities of abstracts. These problematic papers are co-authored by scholars from at least 39 countries and are submitted to both predatory and reputable journals. This study also demonstrates collaboration anomalies in questionable papers and examines indicators of the Russia-based paper mill. The value of co-authorship slots offered by ‘International Publisher’ LLC from 2019 to 2021 is estimated at $6.5 million. Since this study only analysed a single paper mill, it is likely that the number of papers with forged authorship is much higher