ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014
Collective credit allocation in science.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- The scientific game : Strategic Behavior and Incentives in Science.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Shifting the Level of Selection in Science.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- Scientific civility and academic performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- A network-based normalized impact measure reveals successful periods of scientific discovery across discipline.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science.Nature human behaviour · 2023Review
- SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Article
- Impactful scientists have higher tendency to involve collaborators in new topics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Flat teams drive scientific innovation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Task specialization across research careers.eLife · 2020Article
- Bridging the Gap with Clinicians: The Issue of Underrecognition of Pathologists and Radiologists as Scientific Authors in Contemporary Medical Literature.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Opinion: Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Article
- Increasing trend of scientists to switch between topics.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Collaborative patterns, authorship practices and scientific success in biomedical research: a network analysis.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2019Article
- A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates.Scientific data · 2019Article
- The chaperone effect in scientific publishing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Collaboration among researchers is an essential component of the modern scientific enterprise, playing a particularly important role in multidisciplinary research. However, we continue to wrestle with allocating credit to the coauthors of publications with multiple authors, because the relative contribution of each author is difficult to determine. At the same time, the scientific community runs an informal field-dependent credit allocation process that assigns credit in a collective fashion to each work. Here we develop a credit allocation algorithm that captures the coauthors' contribution to a publication as perceived by the scientific community, reproducing the informal collective credit allocation of science. We validate the method by identifying the authors of Nobel-winning papers that are credited for the discovery, independent of their positions in the author list. The method can also compare the relative impact of researchers working in the same field, even if they did not publish together. The ability to accurately measure the relative credit of researchers could affect many aspects of credit allocation in science, potentially impacting hiring, funding, and promotion decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.