Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 769–785 | Cite as

Adding authorship order to the quantity and quality dimensions of scholarly productivity: evidence from group- and individual-level analyses

  • Glenn D. Walters
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether authorship order—as measured by first author publications, citations to first author publications, and the first author h-index—plays a significant role in scholarly productivity. Scholarly productivity was assessed in this study with publications from 2011 to 2014 and citations to these publications as indexed by the Thomson Web of Science. Using a correlational design, a group-level analysis of 36 Ph.D.-granting departments of criminology and criminal justice revealed that ratings from a U.S. News & World Report (USN&WR) survey correlated significantly better with aggregate program first author publications than with aggregate program total publications, although citations to first author publications and the first author h-index failed to correlate significantly better with the USN&WR than citing articles to total publications and the total publication h-index, respectively. An individual-level correlational analysis of all 228 full professors from 44 programs offering a Ph.D. in criminology/criminal justice showed that time until promotion to full professor displayed a significantly stronger inverse correlation with the number of first author publications, the number of citations to first author publications, and the first author h-index than with the total number of publications, the number of citing articles to total publications, and the total publication h-index, respectively. Hence, at both the group and individual levels first author publications and at the individual level citations to first author publications and the first author h-index provided a better estimate of scholarly productivity than their respective total publication counterparts.

Keywords

Citation analysis Criminology Group-level analysis Individual-level analysis 

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). New York: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. British Sociological Association. (2015, November 17). Authorship guidelines [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.britsoc.co.uk/publications/guidelines-reports/authorship-guidelines.aspx.
  3. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Publication productivity of criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorensen, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eisenberg, R. L., Ngo, L., Boiselle, P. M., & Bankier, A. A. (2011). Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: Assessment of frequency and associated factors. Radiology, 59, 479–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher, B. S., Vander Ven, T. M., Cobane, C. T., Cullen, F. T., & Williams, N. (1996). Trends in multiple authored articles in criminology and criminal justice: A comparative analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gater, D. S. (2002). A review of measures used in U.S. News & World Report’s “America’s Best Colleges:” An Occasional Paper from the Lombardi Program on Measuring University Performance. Gainsville, FL: The Center, University of Florida.Google Scholar
  9. Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship [editorial]. Science, 337, 1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.
  11. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2013). ICMJE recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/roles_a.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2015.
  13. Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2011). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2005–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kleck, G., Wang, S.-Y., & Tark, J. (2007). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2000–2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Perlmutter, D. D. (2010). Promotion and tenure confidential. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rajasekaran, S., Shan, R. L. P., & Finnoff, J. T. (2014). Honorary authorship: Frequency and associated factors in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95, 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278, 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shaban, S. (2007). Multiple authorship trends in prestigious journals from 1950 to 2005. Saudi Medical Journal, 28, 927–932.Google Scholar
  21. Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA, 271, 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shutt, J. E., & Barnes, J. D. (2008). Reexamining criminal justice “star power” in a larger sky: A belated response to Rice, on sociological influence in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sorensen, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sorensen, J. R., & Pilgrim, R. (2002). The institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stuart, H. (2013). On the ethics of collaborative authorship: The challenge of authorship order and risk of textploitation. Western Criminology Review, 14, 84–87.Google Scholar
  27. Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientations of articles appearing in criminal justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2011). How many authors does it take to write an article? An assessment of criminology and criminal justice research article author composition. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. News & World Report (2010). America’s best graduate schools (Premium Online Edition, on the U.S. News & World Report website). Retrieved August 1, 2014, from http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-graduate-schools/2010/04/15/how-we-calculated-the-2011-graduate-school-rankings.html.
  31. Walters, G. D. (2015). Measuring the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity in criminology and criminal justice: A test of three integrated models. Scientometrics, 102, 2011–2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & Deangelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 343, d6128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeKutztown UniversityKutztownUSA

Personalised recommendations