The main drawback of ranking of researchers by the number of papers, citations or by the Hirsch index is ignoring the problem of distributing authorship among authors in multi-author publications. So far, the single-author or multi-author publications contribute to the publication record of a researcher equally. This full counting scheme is apparently unfair and causes unjust disproportions, in particular, if ranked researchers have distinctly different collaboration profiles. These disproportions are removed by less common fractional or authorship-weighted counting schemes, which can distribute the authorship credit more properly and suppress a tendency to unjustified inflation of co-authors. The urgent need of widely adopting a fair ranking scheme in practise is exemplified by analysing citation profiles of several highly-cited astronomers and astrophysicists. While the full counting scheme often leads to completely incorrect and misleading ranking, the fractional or authorship-weighted schemes are more accurate and applicable to ranking of researchers as well as research teams. In addition, they suppress differences in ranking among scientific disciplines. These more appropriate schemes should urgently be adopted by scientific publication databases as the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) or the Scopus (Elsevier).

Institute of Geophysics The Czech Academy of Sciences Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2005; 102(46): 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102 PubMed DOI PMC

Rousseau R. A note on the interpolated or real-valued h-index with a generalization for fractional counting. ASLIB J Inform Manag. 2014; 66(1): 2–12.

Egghe L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics. 2006; 69(1): 131–152.

Egghe L. Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in case of fractional counting of authorship. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. 2008; 59: 1608–1616.

Jin BH, Liang L, Rousseau R, Egghe L. The R- and AR-indices: complementing the h-index. Chin Sci Bull. 2007; 52: 855–863.

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Generalizing the h- and g-indices. J Informetrics. 2008; 2(4): 263–271.

Alonso S, Cabrerizo FJ, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. H-index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. J Informetr. 2009; 3(4): 273–289.

Stallings J, Vance E, Yang J, Vannier MW, Liang J, Pang L, et al. Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2013; 110(24): 9680–9685. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220184110 PubMed DOI PMC

Yong A. Critique of Hirsch’s citation index: A combinatorial Fermi problem. Notices Am Math Soc. 2014; 61(9): 1040–1050. doi: 10.1090/noti1164 DOI

Miskiewicz J. Effects of publications in proceedings on the measure of the core size of coauthors. Physica A. 2013; 392: 5119–5131.

Herteliu C, Ausloos M, Ileanu BV, Rotundo G, Andrei T. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of editor behaviour through potentially coercive citations. Publications. 2017; 5(2): 15 doi: 10.3390/publications5020015 DOI

Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007; 316: 1036–1039. doi: 10.1126/science.1136099 PubMed DOI

Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. J Informetr. 2012; 6(4): 700–711.

Papatheodorou SI, Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JPA. Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. J Clinic Epid. 2008; 61: 546–551. PubMed

Kwok LS. The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31: 554–556. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.010553 PubMed DOI PMC

Sekercioglu CH. Quantifying coauthor contributions. Science. 2008; 322(5900): 371. PubMed

Aad G, Abbott B, Abdallah J, Abdinov O, Aben R, Abolins M, et al. Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at root s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments. Phys Rev Lett. 2015; 114: 191803 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803 PubMed DOI

Batista PD, Campiteli MG, Kinouchi O, Martinez AS. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics. 2006; 68(1): 179–189.

Lindsey D. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship. Soc Stud Sci. 1980; 10: 145–162.

Lindsey D. Further evidence for adjusting for multiple authorship. Scientometrics. 1982; 4(5): 389–395.

Schreiber M. To share the fame in a fair way, hm modifies h for multi-authored manuscripts. New J Phys. 2008; 10(040201): 1–9.

Schreiber M. A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts. J Informetr. 2008; 2: 211–216.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship. Scientometrics. 2010; 85(3): 741–754.

Waltman L, Van Eck NJ. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. J Informetr. 2015; 9: 872–894. arXiv:1501.04431.

Egghe L, Rousseau R, Van Hooydonk G. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 2000; 51(2): 145–157.

Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, Resh VH, Krauss J. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLOS Biology. 2007; 5(1): e18 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018 PubMed DOI PMC

Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. 2015. arXiv: 1507.02099.

Hodge SE, Greenberg DA. Publication credit. Science. 1981; 213: 950.

Hagen NT. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(12): e4021 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004021 PubMed DOI PMC

Hagen NT. Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably–not equally, geometrically or arithmetically. Scientometrics. 2010; 84(3): 785–793. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4 PubMed DOI PMC

Jian D, Xiaoli T. Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices. Scientometrics. 2013; 96(1): 277–295.

Lange LL. Citation counts of multi-authored papers—First-named authors and further authors. Scientometrics. 2001; 52(3): 457–470.

Lin CS, Huang MH, Chen DZ. The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J Informetr. 2013; 7(3): 611–621.

Zhang CT. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank. Eur Mol Biol Org Rep. 2009; 10(5): 416–417. PubMed PMC

Romanovsky AA. Revised h index for biomedical research. Cell Cycle. 2012; 11(22): 4118–4121. doi: 10.4161/cc.22179 PubMed DOI PMC

Kosmulski M. The order in the lists of authors in multi-author papers revisited. J Informetr. 2012; 6(4): 639–644.

Hu X, Rousseau R, Chen J. In those fields where multiple authorship is the rule, the h-index should be supplemented by role-based h-indices. J Inform Sci. 2010; 36(1): 73–85.

Huang MH, Lin CS, Chen DZ. Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and impact. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. 2011; 62(12): 2427–2436.

Liu XZ, Fang H. Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index. Scientometrics. 2012; 91(1): 37–49.

Liu XZ, Fang H. Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution. J Informetr. 2012; 6(4): 557–565.

Kennedy D. Multiple authors, multiple problems, Science. 2003; 301:733 doi: 10.1126/science.301.5634.733 PubMed DOI

Hu X. Loads of special authorship functions: linear growth in the percentage of ‘equal first authors’ and corresponding authors. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech. 2009; 60(11): 2378–2381.

Schreiber M. A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors. J Am Soc Inform Sc Tech. 2009; 60(6): 1274–1282.

Ausloos M. A scientometrics law about co-authors and their ranking: the co-author core. Scientometrics. 2013; 95: 895–909.

Aziz NA, Rozing MP. Profit (p)-index: The degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(4): e59814 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059814 PubMed DOI PMC

Galam S. Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index. Scientometrics. 2011; 89: 365–379.

Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Rosati F. The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. J Informetr. 2013; 7: 198–208.