Library and Information Service >
Research Progress and Comparative Analysis of Co-author Contribution Allocation Algorithm
Received date: 2015-04-03
Revised date: 2015-04-28
Online published: 2015-05-20
[Purpose/significance]This paper systematically teases the co-author contribution allocation algorithm, compares the adaptability of various allocation algorithm, and summarizes the usage method and matters needing attention. [Method/process] It introduces several kinds of co-author contribution allocation algorithm, collects data and verities the fitness of algorithms, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of allocation algorithm.[Result/conclusion]Network contribution allocation algorithm based co-author names order has the best fitness, harmonic allocation algorithm hot on the heels. The allocation algorithm based on subject is more suitable for the evaluation of scholars who have certain academic prestige, the one based on co-author names order such as network and harmonic allocation method is applicable to thel evaluation of ordinary researchers.
Fan Xiangwei , Xiao Xiantao . Research Progress and Comparative Analysis of Co-author Contribution Allocation Algorithm[J]. Library and Information Service, 2015 , 59(10) : 116 -123 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.10.017
[1] Kennedy D. Multiple authors, multiple problems[J]. Science, 2003, 301(5634): 733.
[2] Waltman L. An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(4): 700-711.
[3] Katz J S, Martin B R. What is research collaboration?[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(1): 1-18.
[4] Cole J R. Social stratification in science[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
[5] Lindsey D. Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: The problem of multiple authorship[J]. Social Studies of Science, 1980, 10(2): 145-162.
[6] Price D D. Multiple authorship[J]. Science, 1981, 212(4498): 986.
[7] Burrell Q, Rousseau R. Fractional counts for authorship attribution: A numerical study[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1995, 46(2): 97-102.
[8] Egghe L. Source-item production laws for the case that items have multiple sources with fractional counting of credits[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1996, 47(10): 730-748.
[9] Oppenheim C. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1998, 49(5): 482.
[10] Hagen N T. Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis[J].PLoS ONE, 2008, 3(12): e4021.
[11] Zuckerman H A. Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: A study of social symbolism and its ambiguity[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1968, 74(3): 276-291.
[12] 张明. 不同名次合作者(单位)对总体贡献率的研究[J]. 福州总医院学报, 1999, 6(2): 44-45,40.
[13] Van Hooydonk G. Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997, 48(10): 944-945.
[14] Zhang Chunting. A proposal for calculating weighted citations based on author rank[J]. EMBO, 2009, 10(5): 416-417.
[15] 张春霆. 学术评价的评价[J]. 中国科学基金, 2010(6): 328-332.
[16] Abbas A M. Generalized linear weights for sharing credits among multiple authors[J]. arXiv:1012.5477 [cs.DL], 2010.
[17] Abbas A M. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship[J]. Scientometrics, 2011, 88(1): 107-131.
[18] Trueba F J, Guerrero H. A robust formula to credit authors for their publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 60(2): 181-204.
[19] Egghe L, Rousseau R, Van Hooydonk G. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2000, 51(2): 145-157.
[20] Hodge S E, Greenberg D A, Challice C E. Publication credit[J]. Science, 1981, 213(4511): 950,952.
[21] Hagen N T. Harmonic publication and citation counting: Sharing authorship credit equitably - not equally, geometrically or arithmetically[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 84(3): 785-793.
[22] Hagen N T. Harmonic coauthor credit: A parsimonious quantification of the byline hierarchy[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2013, 7(4): 784-791.
[23] Sekercioglu C H. Quantifying coauthor contributions[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5900): 371.
[24] Liu Xuanzhen, Fang Hui. Fairly sharing the credit of multi-authored papers and its application in the modification of h-index and g-index[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(1): 37-49.
[25] Liu Xuanzhen, Fang Hui. Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2012, 6(4): 557-565.
[26] Lukovits I, Vinkler P. Correct credit distribution: A model for sharing credit among coauthors[J]. Social Indicators Research, 1995, 36(1): 91-98.
[27] Kim J, Diesner J. A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(1): 587-602.
[28] Shen Huanwei, Barabasi A L. Collective credit allocation in science[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, 111(34): 12325-12330.
[29] Du Jian, Tang Xiaoli. Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 96(1): 277-295.
[30] Vinkler P. Research contribution, authorship and team cooperativeness[J]. Scientometrics, 1993, 26(1): 213-230.
[31] Wren J D, Kozak K Z, Johnson K R, et al. The write position: A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors[J]. EMBO, 2007, 8(11): 988-991.
[32] Browne M W, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit[J]. Sociological Methods & Research, 1992, 21(2): 230-258.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
