Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:04:57.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative author inputs to Earth science research publications: survey results, insights and potential applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Jason R. Ali Open the ORCID record for Jason R. Ali [Opens in a new window]
Jason R. Ali*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
*
Author for correspondence: Jason R. Ali, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Results are reported of what is believed to be the first survey of the quantitative contributions Earth scientists make to their research publications. Based on a return of 26 (from 45; 254 total documents), two key patterns are observed. For most articles, there is a steady decrease in the roles of the first through fifth authors. The former fall from 65 ± 14% for two-author outputs, to 52 ± 9% for five, to 46 ± 10% for ten; fifth authors are perceived as having contributed 5–6%. The term ‘balanced’ is used to describe such contributor lists. The second pattern, which is labelled ‘imbalanced’, is recognized with teams of five or more and involves the first author shouldering a disproportionately large amount of the work; consequently, the inputs of the third and lesser authors range from small to negligible (5–1%). In some cases, it is observed in a few of a researcher’s publications (≤3); in others, it is more pervasive. There are two basic explanations: estimation problems and excessive numbers of authors, which can be split into two and three subcategories, respectively. The key features of the survey data are dwelt upon. The work concludes with an exploration of a proposed H-Index-type metric that is weighted by the contribution fractions a researcher makes to their publications. This, I contend, would be more reflective of their impact.

Keywords

author weightingbibliometricscorrespondence authorfirst authorH-Indexmulti-author papers
Type
Original Article
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 158 , Issue 6 , June 2021 , pp. 951 - 963
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aad, G, ATLAS and CMS (2015) Combined measurement of the Higgs Boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Physical Review Letters 114, article 191803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, BP, LIGO Scientific and Virgo (2016) Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical Review Letters 116, article 061102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acuna, DE, Allesina, S and Kording, KP (2012) Predicting scientific success. Nature 489, 202–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, L, Brand, A, Scott, J, Altman, M and Hlava, M (2014) Credit where credit is due. Nature 508, 312–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aubry, MP, Ouda, K, Dupuis, C, Berggren, WA, Van Couvering, JA, Ali, JR, Brinkhuis, H, Gingerich, PR, Heilmann-Clausen, C, Hooker, J, Kent, DV, King, C, Knox, RWO’B, Laga, P, Molina, E, Schmitz, B, Steurbaut, E and Ward, DR (2007) The global standard stratotype-section and point for the base of the Eocene Series in the Dababiya section (Egypt). Episodes 30, 271–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biswal, AK (2013) An absolute index (Ab-index) to measure a researcher’s useful contributions and productivity. PLoS ONE 8, article e84334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, G (2020) What’s wrong with the H-index, according to its inventor. Nature Index 24, March 2020.Google Scholar
Costas, R and Bordons, M (2007) The H-index: advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics 1, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cozzarelli, NR (2004) Responsible authorship of papers in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101, 10495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, MA and Roy, S (2017) Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herz, N, Dan, O, Censora, N and Bar-Haima, Y (2020) Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 117, 6282–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102, 16569–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreiner, G (2018) The slavery of the H-index – measuring the unmeasurable. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10, article 556.Google Scholar
Larsen, HC, Saunders, AD, Clift, PD, Beget, J, Wei, W, Spezzaferri, S and other members of ODP Leg 152 Shipboard Scientific Party (1994) Seven million years of glaciation in Greenland. Science 264, 952–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, PA (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 17, R583–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNutt, MK, Bradford, M, Drazen, JM, Hanson, B, Howard, B, Hall Jamieson, K, Kiermer, V, Marcus, E, Kline Pope, B, Schekman, R, Swaminathan, S, Stang, PJ and Verma, IM (2018) Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 115, 2557–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mumpton, FA (1990) The universal recipe or how to get your manuscript accepted by persnickety editors. Clays and Clay Minerals 38, 631–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purkayastha, A, Palmaro, E, Falk-Krzesinski, HJ and Baas, J (2019) Comparison of two article-level, field-independent citation metrics: Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Journal of Informetrics 13, 635–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, MT, Regenstein, JM, Kassim, NLA and Haque, N (2017) The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper. Journal of Informetrics 11, 275–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, ES (2013) Science publishing: the golden club. Nature 502, 291–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Şekercioğlu, ÇH (2008) Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science 322, 371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhagen, JV, Wallace, KJ, Collins, SC and Scott, TR (2003) QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors. Nature 426, 602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wignall, PB, Sun, YD, Bond, DPG, Izon, G, Newton, RJ, Védrine, S, Widdowson, M, Ali, JR, Lai, XL, Jiang, HS, Cope, H and Bottrell, SH (2009) Volcanism, mass extinction, and carbon isotope fluctuations in the Middle Permian of China. Science 324, 1179–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, X, Currie, P, Pittman, M, Xin, LD, Meng, QJ, Lü, JC, Hu, DY and Yu, CY (2017) Mosaic evolution in an asymmetrically feathered troodontid dinosaur with transitional features. Nature Communications 8, article 14972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, CT (2009) A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. EMBO Reports 10, 416–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed