Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29451536›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2017

Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles.

Stéphane Boyer, Takayoshi Ikeda, Marie-Caroline Lefort, Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte, Jason M Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. DORA on steroids.EMBO reports · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship.Advances in medical education and practice · 2021
    Article
  9. Research integrity and peer review · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stéphane Boyer1Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l'Insecte (IRBI) - UMR 7261 CNRS / Université de Tours, Parc Grandmont, 37200 Tours, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0750-4864
Takayoshi IkedaJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama Institute for Earth Sciences, 3173-25 Showa-machi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, 236-0001 Japan.
Marie-Caroline Lefort2Applied Molecular Solutions Research Group, Environmental and Animal Sciences, Unitec Institute of Technology, Private Bag 92025, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand.
Jagoba Malumbres-Olarte5Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, and Biodiversity Research Institute (IRBio), University of Barcelona, Avd. Diagonal, 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Jason M Schmidt7Department of Entomology, The University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experimental Station, 2360 Rainwater Rd, Tifton, GA 31793 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeciphering the amount of work provided by different co-authors of a scientific paper has been a recurrent problem in science. Despite the myriad of metrics available, the scientific community still largely relies on the position in the list of authors to evaluate contributions, a metric that attributes subjective and unfounded credit to co-authors. We propose an easy to apply, universally comparable and fair metric to measure and report co-authors contribution in the scientific literature.

methodsThe proposed Author Contribution Index (ACI) is based on contribution percentages provided by the authors, preferably at the time of submission. Researchers can use ACI to compare the contributions of different authors, describe the contribution profile of a particular researcher or analyse how contribution changes through time. We provide such an analysis based on contribution percentages provided by 97 scientists from the field of ecology who voluntarily responded to an online anonymous survey.

resultsACI is simple to understand and to implement because it is based solely on percentage contributions and the number of co-authors. It provides a continuous score that reflects the contribution of one author as compared to the average contribution of all other authors. For example, ACI(i) = 3, means that author i contributed three times more than what the other authors contributed on average. Our analysis comprised 836 papers published in 2014-2016 and revealed patterns of ACI values that relate to career advancement.

conclusionThere are many examples of author contribution indices that have been proposed but none has really been adopted by scientific journals. Many of the proposed solutions are either too complicated, not accurate enough or not comparable across articles, authors and disciplines. The author contribution index presented here addresses these three major issues and has the potential to contribute to more transparency in the science literature. If adopted by scientific journals, it could provide job seekers, recruiters and evaluating bodies with a tool to gather information that is essential to them and cannot be easily and accurately obtained otherwise. We also suggest that scientists use the index regardless of whether it is implemented by journals or not.

Indexed as

Author contributionCo-authorshipPublication metricScientific integrity

Identifiers

PMID29451536
PMCPMC5803580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.