journal article·2022-02-10Open access

Rating a Researcher’s Cumulative Scholarly Output Based on Their Sequence Numbers in Multi-Authored Publications

Asif Iqbal, Quentin Cheok

Applied Sciences· Volume 12· Issue 4

Abstract

As the academic world yields an ever-increasing research output in terms of journal papers, conference proceedings, and books, the rating of published works and authors becomes imperative. All the big citation databases and search engines are currently using cumulative output indices, such as h-index, i10-index, and g-index, which do not consider the number of co-authors or the researcher’s sequence number in the authors list of a publication. In this context, the article presents a novel computational approach for evaluating a researcher’s scholarly output by taking into account the total number of co-authors, the sequence number of the researcher in the authors list, and the number of citations received per year by an article. Arithmetic progression is applied to quantify the credit for each co-author of a publication. The respective credits of a researcher are then accumulated for all their publications to obtain the rating. The method yields a truer value of the researcher’s impact in terms of their scholarly activities. A global implementation of the metric presented in this work will curb the unethical practice of including the names of non-contributing researchers in the authors list and expecting reciprocity in return.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Expert finding and Q&A systems

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Integrated Technologies, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Jalan Tungku Link, Gadong BE1410, Brunei

Funding

Universiti Brunei Darussalam

References (22)

Show source-provided references
1. Growth rates of modern science: A latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases
2. What do we know about the h index?10.1002/asi.20609 ↗
3. The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.002 ↗
4. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output10.1073/pnas.0507655102 ↗
5. Theory and practise of the g-index10.1007/s11192-006-0144-7 ↗
6. Cornell University Library (2021, November 06). Measuring Your Research Impact: i10-Index. Available online: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/c.php?g=32272&p=203393.
7. A modification of the h-index: The hm-index accounts for multi-authored manuscripts10.1016/j.joi.2008.05.001 ↗
8. A case study of the modified Hirsch index hm accounting for multiple coauthors10.1002/asi.21057 ↗
9. The pure h-index: Calculating an author’s h-index by taking co-authors into account
10. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests?10.1007/s11192-006-0090-4 ↗
11. The state of h index research: Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?10.1038/embor.2008.233 ↗
12. A bibliometric index based on the collaboration distance between cited and citing authors10.1016/j.joi.2010.11.001 ↗
13. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M.E., Rand, T.A., Resh, V.H., and Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol., 5.10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018 ↗
14. ‘Author Contribution Details’ and not ‘Authorship Sequence’as a merit to determine credit: A need to relook at the current Indian practice10.4103/0970-258X.308238 ↗
15. Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis10.1002/asi.23495 ↗
16. Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably–not equally, geometrically or arithmetically10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4 ↗
17. A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation10.1007/s11192-014-1253-3 ↗
18. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas10.1126/science.122.3159.108 ↗
19. Journal impact factor: A brief review
20. Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: It’s time to change how we judge research10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w ↗
21. Waltman, L., and Traag, V.A. (2020). Use of the journal impact factor for assessing individual articles need not be statistically wrong. F1000Research, 9.10.12688/f1000research.23418.1 ↗
22. Comparative analysis between impact factor and h-index for pharmacology and psychiatry journals10.1007/s11192-009-0058-2 ↗