Crediting multi-authored papers to single authors

A fair assignment of credit for multi-authored publications is a long-standing issue in scientometrics. In the calculation of the $h$-index, for instance, all co-authors receive equal credit for a given publication, independent of a given author's contribution to the work or of the total number of co-authors. Several attempts have been made to distribute the credit in a more appropriate manner. In a recent paper, Hirsch has suggested a new way of credit assignment that is fundamentally different from the previous ones: All credit for a multi-author paper goes to a single author, the called ``$\alpha$-author'', defined as the person with the highest current $h$-index not the highest $h$-index at the time of the paper's publication) (J. E. Hirsch, Scientometrics 118, 673 (2019)). The collection of papers this author has received credit for as $\alpha$-author is then used to calculate a new index, $h_{\alpha}$, following the same recipe as for the usual $h$ index. The objective of this new assignment is not a fairer distribution of credit, but rather the determination of an altogether different property, the degree of a person's scientific leadership. We show that given the complex time dependence of $h$ for individual scientists, the approach of using the current $h$ value instead of the historic one is problematic, and we argue that it would be feasible to determine the $\alpha$-author at the time of the paper's publication instead. On the other hand, there are other practical considerations that make the calculation of the proposed $h_{\alpha}$ very difficult. As an alternative, we explore other ways of crediting papers to a single author in order to test early career achievement or scientific leadership.Comment: 6 pages, 4 figure

Co-author weighting in bibliometric methodology and subfields of a scientific discipline

Collaborative work and co-authorship are fundamental to the advancement of modern science. However, it is not clear how collaboration should be measured in achievement-based metrics. Co-author weighted credit introduces distortions into the bibliometric description of a discipline. It puts great weight on collaboration - not based on the results of collaboration - but purely because of the existence of collaborations. In terms of publication and citation impact, it artificially favors some subdisciplines. In order to understand how credit is given in a co-author weighted system (like the NRC's method), we introduced credit spaces. We include a study of the discipline of physics to illustrate the method. Indicators are introduced to measure the proportion of a credit space awarded to a subfield or a set of authors.Comment: 11 pages, 1 figure, 4 table

A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators

An increasing demand for bibliometric assessment of individuals has led to a growth of new bibliometric indicators as well as new variants or combinations of established ones. The aim of this review is to contribute with objective facts about the usefulness of bibliometric indicators of the effects of publication activity at the individual level. This paper reviews 108 indicators that can potentially be used to measure performance on the individual author level, and examines the complexity of their calculations in relation to what they are supposed to reflect and ease of end-user application.Comment: to be published in Scientometrics, 201

Co-authoring Strategies in Business Research

students to help assist their peers along the academic writing journey. This handbook addresses co-authoring strategies in business research. The students are discovering much to debate about co-authoring in academic writing. While co-authoring has shown to lead to higher research output and productivity for researchers, there are challenges. Not least ensuring a fair contribution of each author can be expected in an ethical approach. Recognising different co-authoring strategies is very helpful before embarking on a co-writing exercise. Strategic approaches to co-authoring might be because of multidisciplinary expertise that can speed up the socially constructed process of developing a paper. It may either be sensible for early career academics to bring in publication expertise to a writing team to help position work and manoeuvre the publication minefield. It may simply be two writers with similar background.https://arrow.tudublin.ie/researchporbk/1002/thumbnail.jp

The success of representative governance on superannuation boards

Australia’s superannuation system has transformed the way Australians think about their retirement. But as the size of the funds increase there is additional scrutiny surrounding the governance structures in place to administer the savings of members. The new Federal Government has kick-started the debate with its discussion paper: Better regulation and governance, enhanced transparency and improved competition in superannuation. It has been simultaneously welcomed and condemned, and while its motivations have been questioned there is now more than ever a focus on the governance on these massive pools of savings

A guide for many authors:Writing manuscripts in large collaborations

Writing manuscripts collaboratively affords both opportunities and challenges: Collaborative papers can benefit from the expertise, perspectives, and collective effort of the group but can lack coherence or be produced inefficiently. When collaborations are large, involving tens or hundreds of researchers, there are more and different opportunities and challenges, like appropriately crediting the contributions of many people. This paper is a practical guide for authors writing collaborative manuscripts, particularly those working in large collaborations. We emphasize the importance of deliberate leadership and describe five general strategies that lead authors can employ to maximize opportunities and navigate challenges: care in recruiting the author team, care in crediting the author team, clear and frequent communication, organized materials, and deliberate and early decision-making. For each, we offer specific tips in line with these strategies (e.g., use collaboration agreements, leverage Open Science practices). We then suggest how lead authors can structure the writing and revising process to produce a coherent manuscript and offer tips for submitting papers and responding to peer-reviews. A repository of resources for people writing manuscripts in collaborations is available at osf.io/dzwcn

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical researchers toward authorship in scientific journals

Background: The knowledge, attitudes and practices of scientific authorship vary across different regions. We conducted this study to understand this variation among medical researchers in India.Methods: An anonymous web-based researcher-survey invited all faculty, researchers and PhD students at Pacific institute of Medical sciences, Udaipur, India. The study design and the questionnaire were approved by the institutional ethics committee.  Basic information on study was given to obtain consent for participation. The 30 questions on authorship experience and related issues were based on the statements in International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other national and international recommendations on authorship. Participants reported their authorship experiences and answered multiple choice questionnaires.Results: The response rate was 36.36% among the participants, who were post-graduate with up to 10 years of research experience. About 62.5% had not been appropriately acknowledged as authors at some point during their career. Contributors (authorship) and ethical peer review is perceived as the key principle of research integrity. Though, single authorship was regarded as more significant, interdisciplinary management of diseases increases number of co-authors. A platform to challenge authorship, declaration of contribution in authorship and shared responsibility of co-authors in case of fraudulent publication was majority opinion.Conclusions: Almost 50 of the participant medical researchers had knowledge of formal authorship requirements. Majority agreed with the criteria would help in decreasing the authorship dispute in the medical research. There is need for awareness and continuous education on these criteria

Zapotec Language Activism And Talking Dictionaries

Online dictionaries have become a key tool for some indigenous communities to promote and preserve their languages, often in collaboration with linguists. They can provide a pathway for crossing the digital divide and for establishing a first-ever presence on the internet. Many questions around digital lexicography have been explored, although primarily in relation to large and well-resourced languages. Lexical projects on small and under-resourced languages can provide an opportunity to examine these questions from a different perspective and to raise new questions (Mosel, 2011). In this paper, linguists, technical experts, and Zapotec language activists, who have worked together in Mexico and the United States to create a multimedia platform to showcase and preserve lexical, cultural, and environmental knowledge, share their experience and insight in creating trilingual online Talking Dictionaries in several Zapotec languages. These dictionaries sit opposite from big data mining and illustrate the value of dictionary projects based on small corpora, including having the flexibility to make design decisions to maximize community impact and elevate the status of marginalized languages

A Case Study of the Modified Hirsch Index hm Accounting for Multiple Co-authors

J. E. Hirsch (2005) introduced the h-index to quantify an individual's scientific research output by the largest number h of a scientist's papers, that received at least h citations. This so-called Hirsch index can be easily modified to take multiple co-authorship into account by counting the papers fractionally according to (the inverse of) the number of authors. I have worked out 26 empirical cases of physicists to illustrate the effect of this modification. Although the correlation between the original and the modified Hirsch index is relatively strong, the arrangement of the datasets is significantly different depending on whether they are put into order according to the values of either the original or the modified index.Comment: 29 pages, including 2 tables, 3 figures with 7 plots altogether, accepted for publication in J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Techn. vol. 60 (5) 200