Abstract:Current research performance assessment criteria contribute to some extent to author inflation per publication. Among various indicators for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authors, harmonic counting is relatively superior in terms of calculation, scientific ethics, and application. However, two important factors in harmonic counting are not yet clearly understood. These factors are the perceptions of scientists regarding the (1) corresponding author and (2) equally credited authors (ECAs). We carry out a survey investigation on different perceptions of author position versus contribution among medical researchers with different subfields and professional ranks in China, in order to provide several pieces of evidence on the aforementioned factors. We are surprised to find that researchers with different professional ranks tend to largely acknowledge their own contribution in collaborative research. Next, we conduct an empirical study to measure individual’s citation impact using inflated counts versus harmonic counts. The results indicate that harmonic h -index cannot reflect the high peak of harmonic citations. Therefore, we use (1) harmonic R -index to differentiate authors based on the harmonic citations of each paper belonging to their respective h -cores; and (2) Normalization harmonic ( h, R ) index as a meaningful indicator in ranking scientists. Using a sample of 40 Ph.D. mentors in the field of cardiac and cardiovascular diseases, harmonic counts can distinguish between scientists who are often listed as major contributors and those regularly listed as co-authors. This method may also discourage unethical publication practices such as ghost authorship and gift authorship.

Research on Credit Distribution of Cooperative Papers According to Authors' Rank

A Geometric Counting Method Adaptive to the Author Number

Fairly Sharing the Credit of Multi-Authored Papers and Its Application in the Modification of H-Index and G-Index

Credit allocation based on journal impact factor and coauthorship contribution

Collective credit allocation in science

Ranking in Co-effecting Multi-object/Link Types Networks

Axiomatic Quantification of Co-authors' Relative Contributions

Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation

Co-author weighting in bibliometric methodology and subfields of a scientific discipline

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

Partitioning Highly, Medium and Lowly Cited Publications

A Discussion of Citations from the Perspective of the Contribution of the Cited Paper to the Citing Paper

Measuring academic influence using heterogeneous author-citation networks

Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

The relationship between interdisciplinarity and citation impact-a novel perspective on citation accumulation

On the inequality of citation counts of all publications of individual authors

Assigning credit to scientific datasets using article citation networks

Modifying H-Index by Allocating Credit of Multi-Authored Papers Whose Author Names Rank Based on Contribution

Study on ScholarsˊEvaluation Method Based on Co-author Network