The corresponding author in metric studies of information: an analysis of the co-authorship in the Journal of informetrics
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the characteristics of the corresponding author (CA) in the area of Information Metric Studies. More specifically, we analyze the role of the CA in the articles published in co-authorship in the Journal of informetrics (JOI) in 2016, from two different perspectives: i) the bibliometric characteristics of the CAs; ii) the understanding of the role of the CA by the authors listed in the papers. We carried out the analysis in two stages: 1) identification of the percentage of participation in the main phases of the development of the article and the h index of the CAs by type of authorship, categorizing the contributions of the authors using the information from the JOI submission forms; 2) qualitative evaluation of the role of the CA according to the understanding of the articles' authors, using as a basis the responses of a questionnaire sent to the authors (Hilário, 2020). The results of the analysis include the bibliometric indicators related to the CA by type of authorship (double, triple, quadruple or more): position of the CA in the line of authorship; total percentage of contribution by the CA in the main phases of the development of research; h index; as well as the understanding of the 30 authors who answered the questionnaire regarding the role of the correspondence author in the development of research.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Beaver, D. & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration part I: the professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
Bhandari, M., Guyatt, G. H., Kulkarni, A. V., Devereaux, P. J., Leece, P., Bajammal, S., ”¦, & Busse, J. W. (2014). Perceptions of authors' contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(9), 1049-1054.
Bordons, M., González-Albo, B., Aparicio, J. & Moreno, L. (2014). The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: evidence from Spain. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1385-1400.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Larivière, V., Costas, R., Robinson-García, N. & Sugimoto, C. (2018). Building ties across countries: International collaboration, field specialization, and global leadership. In 23th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, STI2018. Leiden, The Netherlands.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Sugimoto, C. & Larivière, V. (2019). Follow the leader: on the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations. PLoS ONE, 14(6), e0218309.
Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569.
Duffy, M. A. (2017). Last and corresponding authorship practices in ecology. Ecology and evolution, 7(21), 8876–8887.
Fox, C. W., Ritchey, J. P. & Paine, C. E. T. (2018). Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography. Ecology and evolution, 8(2), 11492-11507.
Frandsen, T. F. & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of informetrics, 4 (4), 608–617.
González-Alcaide, G., Park, J.; Huamaní, C. & Ramos, J. M. (2017). Dominance and leadership in research activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182513.
Grácio, M. C. C., Oliveira, E. F. T., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z. & Moed, H. (2020, in press). Does corresponding authorship influence scientific impact in collaboration: Brazilian institutions as a case of study. Scientometrics.
Hilário, C. M. & Grácio, M. C. C. (2017). Scientific collaboration in Brazilian researches: a comparative study in the information science, mathematics and dentistry fields. Scientometrics, 113(2), 929–950.
Hilário, C. M. (2020). A ordem dos autores como um indicador de produtividade relativa em coautorias: uma aplicação no Journal of informetrics (Tesis de doctorado). Universidade Estadual Paulista, Marília.
Hsiehchen, D., Espinoza, M. & Hsieh, A. (2015). Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research. Science advances, 1(8), e1500211.
Huang, M.-H., Lin, C.-S. & Chen, D. Z. (2011). Counting methods, country rank changes, and counting inflation in the assessment of national research productivity and Iict. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(12), 2427-2436.
ICMJE (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Recuperado de http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
ICMJE (2020). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Recuperado de http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Journal of informetrics. (2018). Guide for authors. Recuperado de https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-informetrics/1751-1577/guide-for-authors
Katz, J. S. & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research policy, 26, 1-18.
Koehler, W. C., Anderson, A. D., Dowdy, B. A., Fields, D. E., Golden, M., Hall, D., . . ., & Wasteneys, C. D. (1999). A bibliometric exploration of the demographics of journal articles: fifty years of American Documentation and the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Recuperado de http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/Methods/jbib
Liu, X. Z. & Fang, H. (2014). Scientific group leaders' authorship preferences: an empirical investigation. Scientometrics, 98(2), 909-925.
Man, J. P., Weinkauf, J. G., Tsang, M. & Sin, D. D. (2004). Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European journal of epidemiology, 19(8), 811-817.
Mattsson, P., Sundberg, C. J. & Laget, P. (2011). Is correspondence reflected in the author position? A bibliometric study of the relation between corresponding author and byline position. Scientometrics, 87(1), 99-105.
Mena-Chalco, J. P., Dalpian, G. M. & Capelle, K. (2014). Redes de colaboração acadêmica: um estudo de caso da produção bibliográfica da UFABC. Revista interciente, 1, 50-58.
Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Bornmann, L. & Moed, H. F. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97, 421-434.
Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., Lopez-Illescas, C. & Moed, H. F. (2018). Statistical relationships between corresponding authorship, international co-authorship and citation impact of national research systems. Journal of informetrics, 12, 1251-1262.
Simiaki, S., Geraei, E. & Zare-Farashbandi, F. (2014). A study on scientific collaboration and co-authorship patterns in library and information science studies in Iran between 2005 and 2009. Journal of education and health promotion, 3(1), 99.
Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M. & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: a review article. Journal of public health in Africa, 8(723), 36-42.
Weber, M. (2018). The effects of listing authors in alphabetical order: a review of the empirical evidence. Research evaluation, 27(3), 238–245.
White, H. D. (2001). Authors as citers over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 87–108.
Wouters, P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., Rijcke, S. d., Rushforth, A. & Franssen, T. (2015). The metric tide: literature review (Supplementary Report I to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). HEFCE. DOI: https://10.13140/RG.2.1.5066.3520