Contributorship in scientific collaborations: The perspective of contribution-based byline orders |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Business School, Hohai University, Nanjing, China;2. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China;3. School of Information Science, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA;1. Cryptography and Cognitive Informatics Laboratory, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30 Mickiewicza Ave, Krakow 30-059, Poland;2. School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia;3. Department of Computer Science, Ryerson University, Canada;1. School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China;2. Key Laboratory of Complex System Analysis and Management Decision, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100191, China |
| |
Abstract: | Scientific collaboration empowers scholars to build larger teams and produce more high-quality knowledge. However, with insufficient microscopic examination of scientific collaboration, i.e., the interactions between collaborators, little is currently known about whether the contributing roles of collaborators are fairly and accurately represented on the bylines of scientific papers. To fill this gap, the current study examines how the different roles of collaborators are connected to the order of their names in article bylines across disciplines and team sizes. A dataset of 105,192 articles containing author contribution statements was compiled and analyzed to investigate the byline order distributions of three different contributing roles: versatiles, specialists, and teamplayers. We discovered that, across all disciplines, the order of names in article bylines usually represented authors’ contributions. Versatiles were more likely to be first authors in the byline, followed by teamplayers and specialists. We also found that the division of labor in larger teams varied between disciplines. In some subjects, the three contributing roles disappeared as the size of teams increased, while in others, they remained distinct. Finally, larger team sizes were associated with a weaker relationship between byline ordering and contributing roles. These findings advance studies of scientific collaboration and enrich the literature on the evaluation of scientific performance. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|