| Title |
Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Prabhakar Clement |
| Abstract |
We propose a rational method for addressing an important question-who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The modified ICMJE guidelines are then used as the basis to develop an approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author articles. The outcome of the approach is an authorship matrix, which can be used to answer several nagging questions related to authorship. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 193 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 43 | 21% |
| Unknown | 30 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 32 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 9% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 7% |
| Engineering | 13 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 68 | 33% |
| Unknown | 48 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,155,101
of 25,027,251 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#170
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,795
of 200,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,027,251 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.