Étiquette : authorship

Catégories
EN

Shifting norms in scholarly publications: trends in readability, objectivity, authorship, and AI use

Authors : Padraig Cunningham, Padhraic Smyth, Barry Smyth

Academic and scientific publishing practices have changed significantly in recent years. This paper presents an analysis of 17 million research papers published since 2000 to explore changes in authorship and content practices. It shows a clear trend towards more authors, more references and longer abstracts.

While increased authorship has been reported elsewhere, the present analysis shows that it is pervasive across many major fields of study. We also identify a decline in author productivity which suggests that `gift’ authorship (the inclusion of authors who have not contributed significantly to a work) may be a significant factor. We further report on a tendency for authors to use more hyperbole, perhaps exaggerating their contributions to compete for the limited attention of reviewers, and often at the expense of readability.

This has been especially acute since 2023, as AI has been increasingly used across many fields of study, but particularly in fields such as Computer Science, Engineering and Business. In summary, many of these changes are causes of significant concern. Increased authorship counts and gift authorship have the potential to distort impact metrics such as field-weighted citation impact andh-index, while increased AI usage may compromise readability and objectivity.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.21725

Catégories
EN

How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

Authors : Fernanda Morillo, Manuel Escabias, Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez

This study examines gender disparities in authorship and collaboration within the Spanish scientific workforce, focusing on international and industry co-authored publications. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of over 165,000 publications and more than 170,000 identified authors affiliated with Spanish institutions, the analysis explores how gender interacts with authorship position, research field, career stage, and team size.

The results reveal a consistent under-representation of women in both types of collaboration, particularly in key authorship roles (first, last, and corresponding author). While women are more active at early career stages, their visibility in leadership roles tends to diminish over time, especially as the number of co-authors increases. Field-specific patterns show that even in highly feminized disciplines, such as Biomedical & Health Sciences, women are less likely to appear in prominent authorship positions.

These findings raise important concerns about current research assessment practices that rely heavily on byline position as a proxy for contribution or leadership. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on responsible metrics and proposes policy recommendations to promote more equitable evaluation systems that reflect the collaborative and diverse nature of research careers.

URL : How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1631931

Catégories
EN

Using bibliometrics to detect questionable authorship and affiliation practices and their impact on global research metrics: A case study of 14 universities

Authors : Lokman I. Meho, Elie A. Akl

From 2019 to 2023, a subset of 80 highly published universities demonstrated research output increases exceeding 100%, compared to the global average of 20%. Among these, 14 institutions showed significant declines in first authorship rates, raising questions about their authorship and affiliation practices.

This study employed bibliometric analysis to examine shifts in authorship and affiliation dynamics at these universities. Key findings include a 234% rise in total publications, a 23 percentage point drop in first authorship rates, and an increase in hyper-prolific authors from 23 to 177. International collaborations surged, and several universities exhibited sharp rises in multiaffiliated publications. Additionally, the proportion of articles published in top 10% journals increased by 11 percentage points, and the proportion of articles ranked among the world’s top 10% most cited grew by 12 percentage points.

These trends raise concerns about the integrity of authorship and affiliation practices as they deviate from normative behavior, far exceeding those observed nationally and at top-ranked universities—Caltech, MIT, Princeton, and UC Berkeley.

The study emphasizes the need for collaborative reforms by universities, ranking agencies, publishers, and other entities, highlighting the importance of each entity’s role in preserving academic integrity and ensuring the reliability of global research metrics.

URL : Using bibliometrics to detect questionable authorship and affiliation practices and their impact on global research metrics: A case study of 14 universities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00339

Catégories
EN

Publication Trends in Artificial Intelligence Conferences: The Rise of Super Prolific Authors

Authors : Ariful Azad, Afeefa Banu

Papers published in top conferences contribute influential discoveries that are reshaping the landscape of modern Artificial Intelligence (AI). We analyzed 87,137 papers from 11 AI conferences to examine publication trends over the past decade. Our findings reveal a consistent increase in both the number of papers and authors, reflecting the growing interest in AI research.

We also observed a rise in prolific researchers who publish dozens of papers at the same conference each year. In light of this analysis, the AI research community should consider revisiting authorship policies, addressing equity concerns, and evaluating the workload of junior researchers to foster a more sustainable and inclusive research environment.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07793

Catégories
EN

Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross‑discipline survey

Authors : Elizaveta Savchenko, Ariel Rosenfeld

Collaboration among scholars has emerged as a significant characteristic of contemporary science. As a result, the number of authors listed in publications continues to rise steadily. Unfortunately, determining the authors to be included in the byline and their respective order entails multiple difficulties which often lead to conflicts. Despite the large volume of literature about conflicts in academia, it remains unclear how exactly these are distributed over the main socio-demographic properties, as well as the different types of interactions academics experience.

To address this gap, we conducted an international and cross-disciplinary survey answered by 752 academics from 41 fields of research and 93 countries that statistically well-represent the overall academic workforce. Our findings are concerning and suggest that conflicts over authorship credit arise very early in one’s academic career, even at the level of Master and Ph.D., and become increasingly common over time.

URL : Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross‑discipline survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04972-x

Catégories
EN

Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges

Authors : Mohammad Hosseini, Alex O. Holcombe, Marton Kovacs, Hub Zwart, Daniel S. Katz, Kristi Holmes

Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention.

Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups.

We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members’ contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.

URL : Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2322557

Catégories
EN

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

Author : Daniel S. Dotson

The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus.

Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider’s timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

URL : Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2318790