DORA on steroids

Howy Jacobs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00068-y

IF: 9.071

2024-01-25

EMBO Reports

Abstract:A much better system is needed to recognize the contributions of individual authors to multi-authored works.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Credit where credit is due

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/462825a

IF: 64.8

2009-12-01

Nature

Abstract:A proposed author ID system is gaining widespread support, and could help lay the foundation for an academic-reward system less heavily tied to publications and citations.

multidisciplinary sciences
Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions

Ge Wang,Jiansheng Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1003.3362

2010-03-17

Abstract:Over the past decades, the competition for academic resources has gradually intensified, and worsened with the current financial crisis. To optimize the resource allocation, individualized assessment of research results is being actively studied but the current indices, such as the number of papers, the number of citations, the h-factor and its variants have limitations, especially their inability of determining co-authors' credit shares fairly. Here we establish an axiomatic system and quantify co-authors' relative contributions. Our methodology avoids subjective assignment of co-authors' credits using the inflated, fractional or harmonic methods, and provides a quantitative tool for scientific management such as funding and tenure decisions.

Applications,Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what

Alex O. Holcombe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2020-2-123-134

2021-01-26

Science Editor and Publisher

Abstract:Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional concept of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship model, under which it is not necessary to contribute to the writing or revision of a manuscript, and all those who make substantial contributions to a project are credited. Many journals and publishers have already taken steps in this direction, and further adoption will have several benefi This article makes the case for continuing to move down that path. Use of a contributorship model should improve the ability of universities and funders to identify effective individual researchers and improving their ability to identify the right mix of researchers needed to advance modern science. Other benefi should include facilitating the formation of productive collaborations and the creation of important scientifi tools and software. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy is a machine-readable standard already incorporated into some journal management systems and it allows incremental transition toward contributorship.
Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

Zhicheng Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041

2024-10-06

Abstract:Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.
Every Author as First Author

Erik D. Demaine,Martin L. Demaine

2023-04-04

Abstract:We propose a new standard for writing author names on papers and in bibliographies, which places every author as a first author -- superimposed. This approach enables authors to write papers as true equals, without any advantage given to whoever's name happens to come first alphabetically (for example). We develop the technology for implementing this standard in LaTeX, BibTeX, and HTML; show several examples; and discuss further advantages.

Digital Libraries
Crediting multi-authored papers to single authors

Anna Tietze,Serge Galam,Philip Hofmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.124652

2019-05-06

Abstract: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.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Effective Authorship Attribution in Large Document Collections

Ying Zhao

2007-01-01

Abstract:Techniques that can effectively identify authors of texts are of great importance in scenarios such as detecting plagiarism, and identifying a source of information. A range of attribution approaches has been proposed in recent years, but none of these ar
The Dearth of the Author in AI-Supported Writing

Max Kreminski

2024-04-16

Abstract:We diagnose and briefly discuss the dearth of the author: a condition that arises when AI-based creativity support tools for writing allow users to produce large amounts of text without making a commensurate number of creative decisions, resulting in output that is sparse in expressive intent. We argue that the dearth of the author helps to explain a number of recurring difficulties and anxieties around AI-based writing support tools, but that it also suggests an ambitious new goal for AI-based CSTs.

Human-Computer Interaction,Artificial Intelligence
Collective credit allocation in science

Hua-Wei Shen,Albert-László Barabási

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1401992111

2014-08-15

Abstract:Collaboration among researchers is an essential component of the modern scientific enterprise, playing a particularly important role in multidisciplinary research. However, we continue to wrestle with allocating credit to the coauthors of publications with multiple authors, since the relative contribution of each author is difficult to determine. At the same time, the scientific community runs an informal field-dependent credit allocation process that assigns credit in a collective fashion to each work. Here we develop a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors' contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community, reproducing the informal collective credit allocation of science. We validate the method by identifying the authors of Nobel-winning papers that are credited for the discovery, independent of their positions in the author list. The method can also compare the relative impact of researchers working in the same field, even if they did not publish together. The ability to accurately measure the relative credit of researchers could affect many aspects of credit allocation in science, potentially impacting hiring, funding, and promotion decisions.

Physics and Society,Digital Libraries
Gendermetrics.NET: a novel software for analyzing the gender representation in scientific authoring

Michael H K Bendels,Dörthe Brüggmann,Norman Schöffel,David A Groneberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12995-016-0133-6

2016-09-15

Abstract:Background: Imbalances in female career promotion are believed to be strong in the field of academic science. A primary parameter to analyze gender inequalities is the gender authoring in scientific publications. Since the presently available data on gender distribution is largely limited to underpowered studies, we here develop a new approach to analyze authors' genders in large bibliometric databases. Results: A SQL-Server based multiuser software suite was developed that serves as an integrative tool for analyzing bibliometric data with a special emphasis on gender and topographical analysis. The presented system allows seamless integration, inspection, modification, evaluation and visualization of bibliometric data. By providing an adaptive and almost fully automatic integration and analysis process, the inter-individual variability of analysis is kept at a low level. Depending on the scientific question, the system enables the user to perform a scientometric analysis including its visualization within a short period of time. Conclusion: In summary, a new software suite for analyzing gender representations in scientific articles was established. The system is suitable for the comparative analysis of scientific structures on the level of continents, countries, cities, city regions, institutions, research fields and journals.
Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors

Hui Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9973-4

IF: 3.777

2017-01-01

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:With the growth of research collaborations, the average number of authors per article and the phenomenon of equally important authorships have increased. The essence of the phenomenon of equally important authorships is the approximately equal importance of authors, both because of the difficulties in comparing authors’ contributions to a paper and some actual research evaluation practices, which (approximately) give full paper credit only to the most important authors. A mechanism for indicating that various authors contributed equally is required to maintain and strengthen collaboration. However, the phenomenon of multiple important authors can cause unfair comparisons among the research contributions and abilities of authors of different papers. This loophole may be exploited. Normalizing the credit assigned to a given paper’s authors is an easy way to solve this ethical dilemma. This approach enables fair comparisons of the contributions by the authors of different articles and suppresses unethical behaviour in author listings. Bibliometric researchers have proposed mature methods of normalized paper credit assignment that would be easy to use given the current level of computer adoption.
A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments

Ciriaco Andrea D'Angelo,Cristiano Giuffrida,Giovanni Abramo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21460

2018-12-20

Abstract:National exercises for the evaluation of research activity by universities are becoming regular practice in ever more countries. These exercises have mainly been conducted through the application of peer-review methods. Bibliometrics has not been able to offer a valid large-scale alternative because of almost overwhelming difficulties in identifying the true author of each publication. We will address this problem by presenting a heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometric datasets for large-scale research assessments. The application proposed concerns the Italian university system, consisting of 80 universities and a research staff of over 60,000 scientists. The key advantage of the proposed approach is the ease of implementation. The algorithms are of practical application and have considerably better scalability and expandability properties than state-of-the-art unsupervised approaches. Moreover, the performance in terms of precision and recall, which can be further improved, seems thoroughly adequate for the typical needs of large-scale bibliometric research assessments.

Digital Libraries
Polynomial Weights or Generalized Geometric Weights: Yet Another Scheme for Assigning Credits to Multiple Authors

Ash Mohammad Abbas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1103.2848

2011-03-15

Abstract:Devising a weight assignment policy for assigning credits to multiple authors of a manuscript is a challenging task. In this paper, we present a scheme for assigning credits to multiple authors that we call a polynomial weight assignment scheme. We compare our scheme with other schemes proposed in the literature.

Digital Libraries
CLARA: citation and similarity-based author ranking

Hayat D. Bedru,Chen Zhang,Feng Xie,Shuo Yu,Iftikhar Hussain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04590-5

IF: 3.801

2022-12-09

Scientometrics

Abstract:Scientific collaboration is getting tremendous attention from scholars and becoming the most common way of producing research works from different disciplines, enabling them to solve complex problems. Nevertheless, when the number of collaborators increases in research work, it becomes challenging to single out and recognize one scholar who contributes the most to the collaboration team of multiauthored publications. Hence, determining an influential author either from multiauthored papers or co-authorship networks is an interesting research problem. To address these problems, we develop a citation and similarity-based author ranking method, namely CLARA, that captures the influential author in multiauthored publications. The method considers attributes of publications such as citing papers and co-cited papers and similarity between publications. Firstly, the method computes the contribution of the co-authors in a given paper by employing fractional counting metrics. Secondly, it computes the contextual similarity between the given paper and its co-cited papers. Finally, the method ranks each co-author using the mathematically defined metric, called KeyScore , and discovers the "key" author among the co-authors of the given paper. We validate our method by extracting the papers of the "Chinese Outstanding Youth" winning researchers from the Microsoft Academic Graph dataset. The experimental results show that the CLARA method performs well in identifying key authors accurately and effectively, despite the position of the authors in the author list of their corresponding papers.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities

Adrian A. Diaz-Faes,Maria Bordons

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0008

2017-10-31

Abstract:Purpose: Science is subject to a normative structure that includes how the contributions and interactions between scientists are rewarded. Authorship and citations have been the key elements within the reward system of science, whereas acknowledgements, despite being a well-established element in scholarly communication, have not received the same attention. This paper aims to put forward the bearing of acknowledgements in the humanities to bring to the foreground contributions and interactions that, otherwise, would remain invisible through traditional indicators of research performance. Design/methodology/approach: The study provides a comprehensive framework to understanding acknowledgements as part of the reward system with a special focus on its value in the humanities as a reflection of intellectual indebtedness. The distinctive features of research in the humanities are outlined and the role of acknowledgements as a source of contributorship information is reviewed to support these assumptions. Findings: Peer interactive communication is the prevailing support thanked in the acknowledgements of humanities, so the notion of acknowledgements as super-citations can make special sense in this area. Since single-authored papers still predominate as publishing pattern in this domain, the study of acknowledgements might help to understand social interactions and intellectual influences that lie behind a piece of research and are not visible through authorship. Originality/value: Previous works have proposed and explored the prevailing acknowledgement types by domain. This paper focuses on the humanities to show the role of acknowledgements within the reward system and highlight publication patterns and inherent research features which make acknowledgements particularly interesting in the area as reflection of the socio-cognitive structure of research.

Digital Libraries
A comprehensive analysis of acknowledgement texts in Web of Science: a case study on four scientific domains

Nina Smirnova,Philipp Mayr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04554-9

IF: 3.801

2022-11-15

Scientometrics

Abstract:Analysis of acknowledgments is particularly interesting as acknowledgments may give information not only about funding, but they are also able to reveal hidden contributions to authorship and the researcher's collaboration patterns, context in which research was conducted, and specific aspects of the academic work. The focus of the present research is the analysis of a large sample of acknowledgement texts indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. Record types "article" and "review" from four different scientific domains, namely social sciences, economics, oceanography and computer science, published from 2014 to 2019 in a scientific journal in English were considered. Six types of acknowledged entities, i.e., funding agency, grant number, individuals, university, corporation and miscellaneous, were extracted from the acknowledgement texts using a named entity recognition tagger and subsequently examined. A general analysis of the acknowledgement texts showed that indexing of funding information in WoS is incomplete. The analysis of the automatically extracted entities revealed differences and distinct patterns in the distribution of acknowledged entities of different types between different scientific domains. A strong association was found between acknowledged entity and scientific domain, and acknowledged entity and entity type. Only negligible correlation was found between the number of citations and the number of acknowledged entities. Generally, the number of words in the acknowledgement texts positively correlates with the number of acknowledged funding organizations, universities, individuals and miscellaneous entities. At the same time, acknowledgement texts with the larger number of sentences have more acknowledged individuals and miscellaneous categories.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications
Separating Style from Substance: Enhancing Cross-Genre Authorship Attribution through Data Selection and Presentation

Steven Fincke,Elizabeth Boschee

2024-08-10

Abstract:The task of deciding whether two documents are written by the same author is challenging for both machines and humans. This task is even more challenging when the two documents are written about different topics (e.g. baseball vs. politics) or in different genres (e.g. a blog post vs. an academic article). For machines, the problem is complicated by the relative lack of real-world training examples that cross the topic boundary and the vanishing scarcity of cross-genre data. We propose targeted methods for training data selection and a novel learning curriculum that are designed to discourage a model's reliance on topic information for authorship attribution and correspondingly force it to incorporate information more robustly indicative of style no matter the topic. These refinements yield a 62.7% relative improvement in average cross-genre authorship attribution, as well as 16.6% in the per-genre condition.

Computation and Language
More than Word Frequencies: Authorship Attribution via Natural Frequency Zoned Word Distribution Analysis

Zhili Chen,Liusheng Huang,Wei Yang,Peng Meng,Haibo Miao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1208.3001

2012-08-15

Abstract:With such increasing popularity and availability of digital text data, authorships of digital texts can not be taken for granted due to the ease of copying and parsing. This paper presents a new text style analysis called natural frequency zoned word distribution analysis (NFZ-WDA), and then a basic authorship attribution scheme and an open authorship attribution scheme for digital texts based on the analysis. NFZ-WDA is based on the observation that all authors leave distinct intrinsic word usage traces on texts written by them and these intrinsic styles can be identified and employed to analyze the authorship. The intrinsic word usage styles can be estimated through the analysis of word distribution within a text, which is more than normal word frequency analysis and can be expressed as: which groups of words are used in the text; how frequently does each group of words occur; how are the occurrences of each group of words distributed in the text. Next, the basic authorship attribution scheme and the open authorship attribution scheme provide solutions for both closed and open authorship attribution problems. Through analysis and extensive experimental studies, this paper demonstrates the efficiency of the proposed method for authorship attribution.

Computation and Language
Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

Edilson A. Corrêa Jr.,Filipi N. Silva,Luciano da F. Costa,Diego R. Amancio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.003

2016-09-19

Abstract:Science is becoming increasingly more interdisciplinary, giving rise to more diversity in the areas of expertise within research labs and groups. This also have brought changes to the role researchers in scientific works. As a consequence, multi-authored scientific papers have now became a norm for high quality research. Unfortunately, such a phenomenon induces bias to existing metrics employed to evaluate the productivity and success of researchers. While some metrics were adapted to account for the rank of authors in a paper, many journals are now requiring a description of the specific roles of each author in a publication. Surprisingly, the investigation of the relationship between the rank of authors and their contributions has been limited to a few studies. By analyzing such kind of data, here we show, quantitatively, that the regularity in the authorship contributions decreases with the number of authors in a paper. Furthermore, we found that the rank of authors and their roles in papers follows three general patterns according to the nature of their contributions, such as writing, data analysis, and the conduction of experiments. This was accomplished by collecting and analyzing the data retrieved from PLoS ONE and by devising an entropy-based measurement to quantify the effective number of authors in a paper according to their contributions. The analysis of such patterns confirms that some aspects of the author ranking are in accordance with the expected convention, such as the fact that the first and last authors are more likely to contribute more in a scientific work. Conversely, such analysis also revealed that authors in the intermediary positions of the rank contribute more in certain specific roles, such as the task of collecting data. This indicates that the an unbiased evaluation of researchers must take into account the distinct types of scientific contributions.

Digital Libraries
Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams

Elise Smith,Bryn Williams-Jones,Zubin Master,Vincent Larivière,Cassidy R Sugimoto,Adèle Paul-Hus,Min Shi,Elena Diller,Katie Caudle,David B Resnik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3

Abstract:Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

DORA on steroids

Credit where credit is due

Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions

Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what

Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science

Every Author as First Author

Crediting multi-authored papers to single authors

Effective Authorship Attribution in Large Document Collections

The Dearth of the Author in AI-Supported Writing

Collective credit allocation in science

Gendermetrics.NET: a novel software for analyzing the gender representation in scientific authoring

Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors

A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments

Polynomial Weights or Generalized Geometric Weights: Yet Another Scheme for Assigning Credits to Multiple Authors

CLARA: citation and similarity-based author ranking

Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities

A comprehensive analysis of acknowledgement texts in Web of Science: a case study on four scientific domains

Separating Style from Substance: Enhancing Cross-Genre Authorship Attribution through Data Selection and Presentation

More than Word Frequencies: Authorship Attribution via Natural Frequency Zoned Word Distribution Analysis

Patterns of authors contribution in scientific manuscripts

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams