A new author’s productivity index: p-index

Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

An improved author-topic (AT) model with authorship credit allocation schemes

Authorship credit allocation schemes have attracted considerable research attention. However, no consensus about which one is the best has been attained until now, and limited evidence from practical tasks has been reported. Therefore, this study uses the author interest discovery task as a real-world task case to provide valuable insights into authorship credit allocation schemes and guidelines for further practical applications. For this purpose, a novel model, ATcredit, is proposed to strengthen the Author-Topic (AT) model with an authorship credit allocation scheme, and collapsed Gibbs sampling is used to approximate the posterior and estimate model parameters. Extensive experiments using the SynBio dataset reveal several interesting findings as follows. (a) Any scheme for allocating unequal authorship credits performs better than its equal-credit counterpart with our ATcredit model in terms of perplexity. (b) The fixed versions of four out of the six schemes work better than their flexible counterparts with our ATcredit model, regardless of the hyper-authorship strategy. (c) The variation coefficient of credit awards can serve as a criterion to decide whether the hyper-authorship strategy should be used. (d) When the number of authors in a scholarly article is less than three, the six authorship credit allocation schemes are similar to each other with our ATcredit model in terms of perplexity. (e) The harmonic counting scheme performs the best, followed by the arithmetic counting scheme, and the network-based counting scheme performs the worst with our ATcredit model in terms of perplexity. (f) The arithmetic counting scheme is similar to the harmonic counting scheme in terms of the normalised mutual information (NMI) of discovered interests, but the geometric counting scheme is different from the axiomatic and network-based counting schemes.

Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index

Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a  measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

OBJECTIVES

Effective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model.

DESIGN

We systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework.

DATA SOURCES

All Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007-2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher's achievements.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Articles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848-0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or 'altmetric' data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others.

CONCLUSIONS

All metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.