Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 839–857 | Cite as

Golden-ratio as a substitute to geometric and harmonic counting to determine multi-author publication credit

Article
  • 347 Downloads

Abstract

Countless bibliometric indexes have been proposed to assess researchers’ productivities, in particular, in fields where the author sequence is regarded helpful in determining authors’ individual credits. Unfortunately, the most popular h-index ignores author ranks and leads to bias with multi-author publications; and of the many bibliometric counting methods proposed for assigning credit to authors, such as harmonic or geometric counting, none seems to have been widely adopted yet. In this work, I challenge the assumption that the total credit for a publication be equal to 1. This total-credit normalization assumption diminishes first-author credit and may impede adoption of multi-author-aware credit assignment rules. Other than on relative contributions, author credit could be based on variables such as accountability, which remains unchanged for the first (and potentially, the last) author regardless of additional coauthors. Therefore, I study the adequacy of several counting methods for first-author-normalized credit, giving full credit to the first author while also crediting coauthors. Harmonic counting has been shown to agree well with empirical data; however, unlike geometric counting, harmonic counting results in unbounded total credit for a publication with first-author-credit normalization in the limit of many authors. I therefore propose adaptable geometric counting and evaluate how it combines the advantages of harmonic and geometric counting through an additional parameter. I show that the golden ratio is a parameter for geometric counting that agrees as well as harmonic counting with empirical data for total-credit normalization; and I discuss the impact of using adaptable geometric counting with first-author-normalized credit. In particular, the latter features bounded total credits even when full credit is given to first authors. In conclusion, geometric counting with the golden ratio can be used for credit assignment without having to choose a parameter value, yet offers customization potential and can be combined with either normalization assumption.

Keywords

Bibliometric counting Coauthor problem Golden ratio Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Jessica Mueller and Dr. Benjamin Goldschmidt for critically reading an earlier version of the manuscript, and several anonymous reviewers for their suggestions to improve the focus of this manuscript. The work leading to this publication was supported by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (Grant No. 57178382) with funds from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under REA Grant Agreement No. 605728 (P.R.I.M.E.—Postdoctoral Researchers International Mobility Experience).

References

  1. Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigate Medicine, 55, 174–180.  https://doi.org/10.2310/6650.2007.06044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74, 257–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0216-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batista, D. P., Campiteli, G. M., & Kinouchi, O. (2006). Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics, 68, 179–189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonekamp, S., Halappa, V. G., Corona-Villalobos, C. P., Mensa, M., Eng, J., Lewin, J. S., et al. (2012). Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 198, 1247–1255.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.8253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 830–837.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Hug, S. E., & Daniel, H.-D. (2011). A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 346–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burrows, S., & Moore, M. (2011). Trends in authorship order in biomedical research publications. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 8, 155–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2011.576613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butson, M. J., & Yu, P. K. N. (2010). The first author h-index (hfa-index): Levelling the field for small and large institute medical and science scholars. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 33, 299–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-010-0038-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castelvecchi, D. (2015). Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature News.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.17567.Google Scholar
  10. Ciriminna, R., & Pagliaro, M. (2013). On the use of the h-index in evaluating chemical research. Chemistry Central Journal, 7, 132.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-153X-7-132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science (pp. 21–36). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Measuring the Quality of Scientific Research.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Science Editors. (2012). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/. Accessed September 21, 2017.
  13. de Mesnard, L. (2017). Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses. European Journal of Operational Research, 260, 778–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69, 131–152.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 145–157.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:2%3C145::AID-ASI6%3E3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ehteshami Rad, A., Brinjikji, W., Cloft, H. J., & Kallmes, D. F. (2010). The H-index in academic radiology. Academic Radiology, 17, 817–821.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engqvist, L., & Frommen, J. G. (2008). The h-index and self-citations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 250–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE, 3, e4021.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagen, N. T. (2009). Credit for coauthors. Science, 323, 583.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.323.5914.583a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagen, N. T. (2010a). Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: How many papers does it take to make a PhD? Scientometrics, 85, 567–579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0214-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagen, N. T. (2010b). Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably—Not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics, 84, 785–793.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagen, N. T. (2013). Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 784–791.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harzing, A.-W., Alakangas, S., & Adams, D. (2014). hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences. Scientometrics, 99, 811–821.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodge, S. E., & Greenberg, D. A. (1981). Publication credit. Science, 213, 950. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1687033.
  26. Hu, X., Rousseau, R., & Chen, J. (2010). In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. Journal of Information Science, 36, 73–85.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551509348133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Updated December 2016. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Accessed September 21, 2017.
  28. Jin, B., Liang, L., Rousseau, R., & Egghe, L. (2007). The R- and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 855–863.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-007-0145-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics, 40, 541–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lacasse, J. R., Hodge, D. R., & Bean, K. F. (2011). Evaluating the productivity of social work Scholars using the h-index. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 599–607.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511405069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, J., Kraus, K. L., & Couldwell, W. T. (2009). Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111, 387–392.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2008.10.JNS08978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindsey, D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Social Studies of Science, 10, 145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631278001000202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2012). Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 557–565.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lozano, G. A. (2013). The elephant in the room: Multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers. Current Science, 105, 443–445. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/105/04/0443.pdf.
  35. Lukovits, I., & Vinkler, P. (1995). Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors. Social Indicators Research, 36, 91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D. V., & Ariely, D. (2009). Research note—The researcher as a consumer of scientific publications: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits? Marketing Science, 28, 589–598.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nature. (2007). Who is accountable? Editorial. Nature, 450, 1.  https://doi.org/10.1038/450001a.Google Scholar
  38. Opthof, T., & Wilde, A. A. M. (2009). The Hirsch-index: A simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists. Netherlands Heart Journal, 17, 145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03086237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sahoo, S. (2016). Analyzing research performance: Proposition of a new complementary index. Scientometrics, 108, 489–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1988-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schreiber, M. (2008). To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New Journal of Physics, 10, 040201.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/040201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sekercioglu, C. H. (2008). Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science, 322, 371.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.322.5900.371a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shao, J., & Shen, H. (2011). The outflow of academic papers from china: Why is it happening and can it be stemmed? Learned Publishing, 24, 95–97.  https://doi.org/10.1087/20110203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sidiropoulos, A., Katsaros, D., & Manolopoulos, Y. (2007). Generalized Hirsch h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Scientometrics, 72, 253–280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1722-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slone, R. M. (1996). Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167, 571–579.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.3.8751654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Šupak Smolčić, V. (2013). Salami publication: Definitions and examples. Biochemia Medica, 23, 137–141.  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2013.030.Google Scholar
  46. Sondow, J., & Weisstein, E. W. (2016). Harmonic number. From MathWorld—A Wolfram web resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HarmonicNumber.html. Accessed September 21, 2017.
  47. Svider, P. F., Choudhry, Z. A., Choudhry, O. J., Baredes, S., Liu, J. K., & Eloy, J. A. (2013). The use of the h-index in academic otolaryngology. The Laryngoscope, 123, 103–106.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.23569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLOS Biology, 5, e18.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2016). Number of authors per MEDLINE®/PubMed®Citation. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html. Accessed September 21, 2017.
  50. Van Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 944–945.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10%3C944::AID-ASI8%3E3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinkler, P. (1993). Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness. Scientometrics, 26, 213–230.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vinkler, P. (2000). Evaluation of the publication activity of research teams by means of scientometric indicators. Current Science, 79, 602–6012. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/cs/Downloads/article_id_079_05_0602_0612_0.pdf.
  53. Wilson, K. (2002). Quality assurance issues for a PhD by published work: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 10, 71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880210423555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wren, J. D., Kozak, K. Z., Johnson, K. R., Deakyne, S. J., Schilling, L. M., & Dellavalle, R. P. (2007). The write position. EMBO Reports, 8, 988–991.  https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7401095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang, C.-T. (2009a). A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports, 10, 416–417.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2009.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, C.-T. (2009b). The e-index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS ONE, 4, e5429.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging SystemsRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations