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

Abstract

Accurate measurement of research productivity should take account of both the number of co-authors of every scientific work and of the different contributions of the individuals. For researchers in the life sciences, common practice is to indicate such contributions through position in the authors list. In this work, we measure the distortion introduced to bibliometric ranking lists for scientific productivity when the number of co-authors or their position in the list is ignored. The field of observation consists of all Italian university professors working in the life sciences, with scientific production examined over the period 2004-2008. The outcomes of the study lead to a recommendation against using indicators or evaluation methods that ignore the different authors' contributions to the research results.

arXiv commentarXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1810.12853

References in corpus (7)

• An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
• An index to quantify an individual's scientific research valid across disciplines
• A heuristic approach to author name disambiguation in bibliometrics databases for large-scale research assessments
• Research productivity: are higher academic ranks more productive than lower ones?
• A Case Study of the Modified Hirsch Index hm Accounting for Multiple Co-authors
• National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level
• Fractional counting of authorship to quantify scientific research output

Cited by in corpus (26)

• How do you define and measure research productivity?
• Are the authors of highly cited articles also the most productive ones?
• The VQR, Italy's second national research assessment: Methodological failures and ranking distortions
• Counting methods introduced into the bibliometric research literature 1970-2018: A review
• Career advancement and scientific performance in universities
• Should the research performance of scientists be distinguished by gender?
• Gender bias in academic recruitment
• The north-south divide in the Italian higher education system
• Measuring institutional research productivity for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the byline
• Evaluating university research: same performance indicator, different rankings
• Ranking research institutions by the number of highly-cited articles per scientist
• How long do top scientists maintain their stardom? An analysis by region, gender and discipline: evidence from Italy
• The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities
• A nation's foreign and domestic professors: which have better research performance? (The Italian case)
• An investigation on the skewness patterns and fractal nature of research productivity distributions at field and discipline level
• A multivariate stochastic model to assess research performance
• Selection committees for academic recruitment: does gender matter?
• Assessing the true role of coauthors in the h-index measure of an author scientific impact
• On tit for tat: Franceschini and Maisano versus ANVUR regarding the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011-2014
• The determinants of academic career advancement: evidence from Italy
• A methodology to measure the effectiveness of academic recruitment and turnover
• From rankings to funnel plots: the question of accounting for uncertainty when measuring university research performance
• Funnel plots for visualizing uncertainty in the research performance of institutions
• A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
• Accounting for gender research performance differences in ranking universities
• Validation of counting methods in bibliometrics