You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00196 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucas D. Eggert |
| Abstract |
Working in multidisciplinary teams has become a common feature of modern research processes. This situation inevitably leads to the question of how to decide on who to acknowledge as authors of a multi-authored publication. The question is gaining pertinence, since individual scientists' publication records are playing an increasingly important role in their professional success. At worst, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to a serious conflict among coworkers that could even endanger the successful completion of a whole research project. Surprisingly, there does not seem to be any discussion on the issue of ethical standards for authorship is the field of Cognitive Science at the moment. In this short review I address the problem by characterizing modern challenges to a fair system for allocating authorship. I also offer a list of best practice principles and recommendations for determining authors in multi-authored publications on the basis of a review of existing standards. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| Korea, Republic of | 2 | 18% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Singapore | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 4 | 4% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 75 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Professor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 December 2015.
All research outputs
#4,450,148
of 24,843,842 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,517
of 33,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,712
of 192,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#94
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,843,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 192,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.