Abstract:Rather than "measuring" a scientist impact through the number of citations which his/her published work can have generated, isn't it more appropriate to consider his/her value through his/her scientific network performance illustrated by his/her co-author role, thus focussing on his/her joint publications, - and their impact through citations? Whence, on one hand, this paper very briefly examines bibliometric laws, like the $h$-index and subsequent debate about co-authorship effects, but on the other hand, proposes a measure of collaborative work through a new index. Based on data about the publication output of a specific research group, a new bibliometric law is found. Let a co-author $C$ have written $J$ (joint) publications with one or several colleagues. Rank all the co-authors of that individual according to their number of joint publications, giving a rank $r$ to each co-author, starting with $r=1$ for the most prolific. It is empirically found that a very simple relationship holds between the number of joint publications $J$ by coauthors and their rank of importance, i.e. $J \propto 1/r$. Thereafter, in the same spirit as for the Hirsch core, one can define a "co-author core", and introduce indices operating on an author. It is emphasized that the new index has a quite different (philosophical) perspective that the $h$-index. In the present case, one focusses on "relevant" persons rather than on "relevant" publications. Although the numerical discussion is based on one case, there is little doubt that the law can be verified in many other situations. Therefore, variants and generalizations could be later produced in order to quantify co-author roles, in a temporary or long lasting stable team(s), and lead to criteria about funding, career measurements or even induce career strategies.

Has Price's Dream Come True: is Scientometrics a Hard Science?

Scientometrics and communication theory: Towards theoretically informed indicators

A scientists' view of scientometrics: Not everything that counts can be counted

Science and its significant other: Representing the humanities in bibliometric scholarship

A review of theory and practice in scientometrics.

Information metrics (iMetrics): a research specialty with a socio-cognitive identity?

Scientometric engineering: Exploring citation dynamics via arXiv eprints

Scientometric analysis of Condensed Matter Physics journal

Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy applied to iMetrics: Scientometrics, Journal of Informetrics, and a relevant subset of JASIST

Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus

The Citation Impact of German Sociology Journals: Some Problems with the Use of Scientometric Indicators in Journal and Research Evaluations

A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking. The co-author core

Scientometrics and Science Studies: From Words and Co-Words to Information and Probabilistic Entropy

The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter

Methods for measuring the citations and productivity of scientists across time and discipline

Evolution of the Development of Scientometrics

Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics?

Biblioranking fundamental physics

How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox?

Stakes are higher, risk is lower: Citation distributions are more equal in high quality journals

Bibliometric studies outside the information science and library science field: uncontainable or uncontrollable?