Credit allocation based on journal impact factor and coauthorship contribution

Some research institutions demand researchers to distribute the incomes they earn from publishing papers to their researchers and/or co-authors. In this study, we deal with the Impact Factor-based ranking journal as a criteria for the correct distribution of these incomes. We also include the Authorship Credit factor for distribution of the incomes among authors, using the geometric progression of Cantor's theory and the Harmonic Credit Index. Depending on the ranking of the journal, the proposed model develops a proper publication credit allocation among all authors. Moreover, our tool can be deployed in the evaluation of an institution for a funding program, as well as calculating the amounts necessary to incentivize research among personnel.Comment: 9 pages; 3 figures; 2 table

Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias

This paper examines the effects of inflationary and equalizing bias on publication output rankings. Any identifiable amount of bias in authorship accreditation was detrimental to accuracy when ranking a select group of leading Canadian aquaculture researchers. Bias arose when publication scores were calculated without taking into account information about multiple authorship and differential coauthor contributions. The ensuing biased equal credit scores, whether fractional or inflated, produced rankings that were fundamentally different from the ranking of harmonic estimates of actual credit calculated by using all relevant byline information in the source data. In conclusion, the results indicate that both fractional and inflated rankings are misleading, and suggest that accurate accreditation of coauthors is the key to reliable publication performance rankings.Paid Open Acces

Fair, Affordable and Open Access to Knowledge: The Caul Collection and Reporting of APC Information Project

Article processing charges (APCs) are fundamental to the business models of many Hybrid and Gold open access (OA) journals. The need to quantify the volume of APC payments paid on behalf of institutional researchers has therefore never been greater. New publishing models will have profound implications for future institutional budgets, and libraries urgently require better information about potential costs and savings. In 2018, the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) commissioned a project to examine the financial impact of APC payments on universities in Australia and New Zealand. The project aims to develop a methodology for the estimation of APC payments based on data from sources such as Scopus, Web of Science and Unpaywall. In order to test this methodology, the Working Group began a pilot project in February 2019. As part of this pilot, data on publications produced by researchers at six local universities in 2017 were collated and analysed. This paper will explain the rationale behind the project methodology. It will present the preliminary findings of the pilot, and flag some of the lessons learnt to date. In addition, the paper will identify future changes. It will be of interest to any librarian concerned with the potential impact of changing publishing models on institutional budgets

Harmonic coauthor credit : A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy

In this paper the accuracy of five current approaches to quantifying the byline hierarchy of a scientific paper is assessed by measuring the ability of each to explain the variation in acomposite empirical dataset. Harmonic credit explained 97% of the variation by including information about the number of coauthors and their position in the byline. In contrast, fractional credit, which ignored the byline hierarchy by allocating equal credit to all coauthors, explained less than 40% of the variation in the empirical dataset. The nearly 60% discrepancy in explanatory power between fractional and harmonic credit was accounted for by equalizing bias associated with the omission of relevant information about differential coauthor contribution. Including an additional parameter to describe a continuum of intermediate formulas between fractional and harmonic provided a negligible or negative gain in predictive accuracy. By comparison, two parametric models from the bibliometric literature both had an explanatory capacity of approximately 80%. In conclusion, the results indicate that the harmonic formula provides a parsimonious solution to the problem of quantifying the byline hierarchy. Harmonic credit allocation also accommodates specific indications of departures from the basic byline hierarchy, such as footnoted information stating that some or all coauthors have contributed equally or indicating the presence of a senior author.Paid Open Acces

Reversing the byline hierarchy : The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors

Equalizing bias (EqB) is a systematic inaccuracy which arises when authorship credit is divided equally among coauthors who have not contributed equally. As the number of coauthors increases, the diminishing amount of credit allocated to each additional coauthor is increasingly composed of equalizing bias such that when the total number of coauthors exceeds 12, the credit score of most coauthors is composed mostly of EqB. In general, EqB reverses the byline hierarchy and skews bibliometric assessments by underestimating the contribution of primary authors, i.e. those adversely affected by negative EqB, and overestimating the contribution of secondary authors, those benefitting from positive EqB. The positive and negative effects of EqB are balanced and sum to zero, but are not symmetrical. The lack of symmetry exacerbates the relative effects of EqB, and explains why primary authors are increasingly outnumbered by secondary authors as the number of coauthors increases. Specifically, for a paper with 50 coauthors, the benefit of positive EqB goes to 39 secondary authors while the burden of negative EqB befalls 11 primary authors. Relative to harmonic estimates of their actual contribution, the EqB of the 50 coauthors ranged from 350%. Senior authorship, when it occurs, is conventionally indicated by a corresponding last author and recognized as being on a par with a first author. If senior authorship is not recognized, then the credit lost by an unrecognized senior author is distributed among the other coauthors as part of their EqB. The powerful distortional effect of EqB is compounded in bibliometric indices and performance rankings derived from biased equal credit. Equalizing bias must therefore be corrected at the source by ensuring accurate accreditation of all coauthors prior to the calculation of aggregate publication metrics.Paid Open Acces

Credit Allocation Based on Journal Impact Factor and Co-authorship Contribution

Abstract. Some research institutions demand researchers to distribute the incomes they earn from publishing papers to their researchers and/or co-authors. In this study, we deal with the Impact Factor-based ranking journal as a criteria for the correct distribution of these incomes. We also include the Authorship Credit factor for distribution of the incomes among authors, using the geometric progression of Cantor’s theory and the Harmonic Credit Index. Depending on the ranking of the journal, the proposed model develops a proper publication credit allocation among all authors. Moreover, our tool can be deployed in the evaluation of an institution for a funding program, as well as calculating the amounts necessary to incentivize research among personnel.Keywords. Co-author credit; Impact factor; Ranking; Cantor’s succession; Harmonic credit.JEL. A12, C02, C10

A Bibliometric Study of Authorship and Collaboration Trends Over the Past 30 Years in Four Major Musculoskeletal Science Journals

This study explored changes in bibliometric variables over the last 30 years for four major musculoskeletal science journals (BONE®), Calcified Tissue International® (CTI®), Journal of Bone and Mineral Research® (JBMR®), and Journal of Orthopaedic Research® (JOR®), with a specific focus on author gender. Bibliometric data were collected for all manuscripts in 1985 (BONE®, CTI®, JOR®), 1986 (JBMR®), 1995, 2005, and 2015; 2776 manuscripts met inclusion criteria. Manuscripts from Europe were more often published in BONE® or CTI®, while those from North America in JBMR® or JOR®. All journals demonstrated an increase over time in the number of authors (3.67–7.3), number of countries (1.1–1.4), number of institutions (1.4–3.1), and number of references (25.1–45.4). The number of manuscript pages increased (6.6–8.9) except for JOR® which showed a decline. CTI® had the lowest number of authors (4.9 vs. 5.6–6.8). There was a change in the corresponding author position from first to last for all journals; this change was highest for CTI® (35%) and lowest for BONE® (14.0%). All journals demonstrated an increase over time in female authors; however, CTI® was the highest amongst these four journals. The percentage of female first authors rose from 24.6 to 44.3% (CTI® 29.1–52.3%). The percentage of corresponding female authors rose from 17.5 to 33.6% (CTI® 22.9–40.0%). The proportion of female authors is increasing, likely reflecting the increasing number of women obtaining doctorates in science, medicine, and engineering

The delights, discomforts, and downright furies of the manuscript submission process

Instructions to authors about submitting papers for publication vary hugely – from none at all to whole handbooks.Online submission systems have not reduced the complexity of submission and may have increased the work of authors.Electronic submission processes do not appear to have been adequately ‘road tested’ with authors.Some publishers are introducing more flexible submission rules that may help authors

Suomalainen julkaisuaktiivisuus psykiatrian alan ydinlehdissä vuosina 2001-2010

Bibliometrian menetelmät ovat vakiinnuttaneet asemansa tutkimustyön arvioinnin apuvälineenä. Tässä työssä esitellään 30 maan psykiatrian tutkimustoiminnan tuloksellisuutta vertailemalla tutkimusryhmien julkaisutoimintaa vuosina 2001-2010 kansainvälisissä psykiatrian ja sen lähialueiden näkyvimmissä lehdissä. Lisäksi analysoidaan Suomen psykiatrian julkaisutoiminnan kansainvälistä yhteistyötä. Tulosten mukaan ydinlehtien julkaisemien artikkeleiden määrä oli kasvanut tarkastelujakson aikana kolmanneksella ja kaikissa maissa psykiatrian julkaisuaktiivisuus oli lisääntynyt. Suomalaisten kirjoittajien osuus kaikista artikkeleista oli 1,7 prosenttia. Suomalaisten artikkeleista yli puolet oli yhteisjulkaisuja ulkomaisten tutkijoiden kanssa. Kansainvälisten yhteisjulkaisujen osuus oli kasvanut tasaisesti koko 2000-luvun. Suurimmassa osassa suomalaisia kirjoittajia sisältävistä tutkimuksista myös vastuukirjoittaja oli Suomesta. Tämä osuus oli kuitenkin laskenut viime vuosina kansainvälisen yhteistyön lisääntymisen myötä

Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective

Scientific authorship has important implications in science since it reflects the contribution to research of the different individual scientists and it is considered by evaluation committees in research assessment processes. This study analyses the order of authorship in the scientific output of 1,064 permanent scientists at the Spanish CSIC (WoS, 1994-2004). The influence of age, professional rank and bibliometric profile of scientists over the position of their names in the byline of publications is explored in three different research areas: Biology and Biomedicine, Materials Science and Natural Resources. There is a strong trend for signatures of younger researchers and those in the lower professional ranks to appear in the first position (junior signing pattern), while more veteran or highly-ranked ones, who tend to play supervisory functions in research, are proportionally more likely to sign in the last position (senior signing pattern). Professional rank and age have an effect on authorship order in the three fields analysed, but there are inter-field differences. Authorship patterns are especially marked in the most collaboration-intensive field (i.e. Biology and Biomedicine), where professional rank seems to be more significant than age in determining the role of scientists in research as seen through their authorship patterns, while age has a more significant effect in the least collaboration-intensive field (Natural Resources).Peer reviewe