J. Scientometric Res. | A journal devoted to Innovation Studies and Policy Research
Submit
Full-text 21 Mins Read71 Views

Implementing Quantitative Declarations of Authorship Contribution: A Call to Action

Mohammad Tariqur Rahman1 and Justus V Verhagen23
Author informationPDFCitations

1Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA

2The John B. Pierce Laboratory, New Haven, CT, USA

3Department of Neuroscience, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Corresponding author.

Correspondence: Mohammad Tariqur Rahman Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603. MALAYSIA. Email: [email protected]; [email protected] ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3600-3265

Author Notes

Received June 02, 2022; Revised March 18, 2023; Accepted July 08, 2023.

Copyright and License information

Copyright Š2023 Author (s)
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Download PDF
Cite this Article
Read in Readcube
Citations & Metrics

Citation

1.Rahman MT, Verhagen JV. Implementing Quantitative Declarations of Authorship Contribution: A Call to Action. Journal of Scientometric Research [Internet]. 2023 Aug 6;12(2):431–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5530/jscires.12.2.039
Copy to clipboard
Published in: Journal of Scientometric Research, 04 September 2023; 12(2): 431-435..Published online: 04 September 2023DOI:10.5530/jscires.12.2.039

ABSTRACT

Problems due to limitations of the status quo in authorship declaration across scientific fields are accumulating at an accelerating pace. Here we highlight the importance of having a mechanism to capture quantitative author contribution. That can be achieved using a range of Intellectual Activities (IAs) as recommended by International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), or Quantitative Uniform Authorship Declaration (QUAD). Eventually, this quantitative assessment can be used to evaluate the impact of the author using the Author Performance Index (API) to avoid any superfluous credit assignment. Irrespective of the field and the online submission tool of a journal, this approach will enable the scientific community to devise a new paradigm of an objective and precise evaluation of the impact of an author in scientific communications. Not unlike climate change, adapting is inevitable, and the sooner we act the more trouble we stave off.

Keywords: Intellectual contribution, Intellectual activity, Unfair authorship, Multi-authored paper, Online submission, Declaration of author contribution

INTRODUCTION

Authorship on the byline has remained the standard means of declaring who contributed to scientific publications.[1–5] In addition, logistical contributions which also play vital roles in the production of a publication have traditionally been declared in the “acknowledgment” section of a paper along with the fund or grant providers. Due to the changes in the types of contributions manifested in collaborative research or team science[6, 7] adoption of a shift of diverse credit assignment from authors to contributors has been proposed.[8–11] Furthermore, assigning authorship without any intellectual contribution continues to grow.[3,11,12-19,20] The increasing concern of unfair authorship assignment parallels the ever-growing number of Multi-Authored Papers (MAP) involving collaborative research[21–32] as well as team research.[6, 7]

Nevertheless, declaration of contribution such as those recommended by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)[33] and proposed by Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)[11] are among the commonly used sources to declare author contributions for Intellectual Activities (IA) involved in the production of a paper. Notably, ICMJE recommendations include four categories of IA while CRediT lists 11 types of contributions (but not limited) of which at least nine are intellectual in nature. In addition to those, a tool defined as Quantitative Uniform Authorship Declaration (QUAD)[34] offers a list of four IAs which are similar to what is recommended by ICMJE.

Under the mounting pressure to find a solution of fair share of credits as author or contributors, the quantitative approach could be implemented by the journal publishers through their online submission system. Declaration of contribution to those IAs can be captured quantitatively by a mathematical tool called the relative Intellectual Contribution (ICr).[35] The importance of quantitative declaration of intellectual activities, hence calculating the ICr will be useful to (i) list the authors in the bylines, and (ii) measure the impact of an individual as an author more quantitatively by using both T-index which calculates an adjusted or modified h-index according to the ICr[35] and Author Performance Index (API).[36]

This paper proposes a mechanism to adopt a quantitative approach and explains how it would help to evaluate the impact of an author more precisely in scientific communication.

A brief introduction to ICMJE recommendations, CRediT, QUAD, and ICr

After its initial inception in 1978 as Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts for Biomedical journal, the ICMJE recommendations went beyond standardizing manuscript format and preparation across journals. In its latest version of 2019, four criteria were recommended to assign authorship in Biomedical journals, namely: (i) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (ii) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (iii) final approval of the version to be published; AND (iv) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Any individual must meet all four criteria to become eligible as an author of a paper.[33]

The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) provides diverse classes of roles that are needed to publish research output. The CRediT classification covers roles and contributions beyond those that have been used to assign authorship. Following this taxonomy all contributors, whether their contribution is intellectual or logistical in nature, can be listed formally either as authors or named in acknowledgements.[11]

The QUAD system, proposed in 2003, expands on these categorizations by allowing the useful quantification of the contribution in four categories of IA namely, conception and design, data collection, data analysis and conclusions, and manuscript preparation. Percent contribution to each IA is assigned for each author to calculate the total contribution (or credit share). Positions of the authors in the list may follow a descending order of total contribution across all four categories. In case two or more authors have equal contributions, the listing could be made alphabetically.[34] An example of quantitative author contribution according to the QUAD system is given in Table 1.

Intellectual Activities (IA) Percent Contribution
MTR JVV
Conception and design 0.60 0.40
Data collection NA NA
Data analysis and conclusions NA NA
Manuscript preparation 0.50 0.50
Author’s total contribution or Credit Share 1.10 0.90
Table 1:

An example of calculating quantitative author contribution using QUAD for the current manuscript.

Calculating ICr, proposed in 2017, provides a more flexible quantitative approach than QUAD to define IA involved in the production of a paper. According to this approach, contributions are not restricted to any defined IAs but are up to the authors to decide based on the nature of the work they want to publish.

To calculate ICr, each IA is also assigned with a Weighing Factor (WF) depending on its importance to produce the paper. Finally a percent contribution of each author in each IA is assigned to calculate ICr.[35] An example of assigning quantitative contribution of authors for a manuscript is shown in the Table 2.

Intellectual Activities (IA) WFn* ICa
MTR JVV
Formulation of the initial concept/idea. 0.25 0.60 0.40
Literature review to support the different stages of paper preparation. 0.30 0.65 0.35
Writing the manuscript (from initial writing until the submission). 0.30 0.55 0.45
Revision of the manuscript according to reviewer’s commentso. 0.15 0.50 0.50
Author’s relative intellectual contribution [ICr]. 0.585 0.415
*.

An example of calculating quantitative author contribution and calculating ICr for the current manuscript.

Mechanism to incorporate declaration of quantitative contribution

Most of the online submission tools involve a few steps that lead to a final submission. This includes information of the article (e.g., title, abstract, keywords), author details (names, affiliation, emails), uploading files, list of reviewers, and disclaimers. To adopt the proposed mechanism to capture quantitative author contribution, a publisher or a journal can incorporate the required information as described below.

The declaration of quantitative contribution can be captured at any of the stages of the article submission: initial submission, submission of the revised version, or when finalizing the accepted manuscript. Incorporation of a quantitative tool such as ICr in the existing online submission tool will need (i) a list of IAs that are involved in the production of a paper (such as from ICJME, QUAD, or CRediT), (ii) a weighing factor for each IA, and (iii) percent contribution of each author for each IA.

IAs involved in the production of a paper can be captured during the step of collecting article information. The online submission tool of a journal may provide the option to choose or define IAs. Authors may be given the option either to choose ICJME criteria, CRediT roles and contributions, or QUAD specific IAs. Authors may also give open-ended option to define IAs involved in the production of their paper (Figure 1, Step 1).

Upon completion of defining the IAs, the system may allow them to assign a Weight Factor (WF) for each IA (Figure 1 step 2). The algorithm to assign author-defined IA and WF should be designed in a way that the sum of WFs of all IA equals 100%.

Authors will be given the option to choose IAs that are involved in the production of the paper according to either ICJME, QUAD, or CRediT (Step 1). Depending on the convenience and interests, any group of authors involved in the production of a paper may choose from either ICMJE recommended criteria, list of roles and contribution from CRediT, or QUAD (Step 2). Authors will then be given an opportunity to assign a Weighing Factor (WF) for each IA and % contribution (or its decimal value) for each IA of each author (Step 2). Quantitative intellectual contribution of an individual can then be calculated algorithmically by the online submission tool based on the Relative Intellectual Contribution (ICr) equation (Step 3). Once ICr is made available with the published paper, scientometric databases can use it to calculate the impact of an author precisely such as using T-index which is a multiplication of ICr and h-index (Step 4). If the authors are given the option to identify primary author, principal author, or co-author at any point during the manuscript submission and such a categorization is made available, the scientometric databases can also use Author Performance Index (API) to reveal the performance of an author (Step 5).

Figure 1:
Mechanism to adopt a quantitative approach to measure contribution and impact of an author.

The author will then assign the quantitative contribution of each author (either in the form of a percentage or its decimal value) for each IA (Figure 1, Step 2). Preferably the corresponding author can take the lead to assign the quantitative contribution of all authors. The sum of contributions of all authors for each IA should equal 100%. (Table 2).

were, PP = ÎŁ # of papers as primary and principal author; PT = ÎŁ # of papers as author (including primary, principal and coauthor); YF= Year of publication of the first paper being counted, i.e., 1995; YC= Current year of publication (the year when ICr of an author is calculated), i.e., 2020

Note: All four variables in the equation will vary from one author to another. However, for the sake of calculation the number of papers as PP for all authors are only shown different.

Once adopted, such quantitative contribution can be made available for each paper such as the ICr of each author to produce the paper. Eventually the ICr may be used by the journal to algorithmically categorize the authors as primary, principal, or co-authors[36] (Figure 1, Step 3).

To measure the contribution of an individual as an author, their impact on the scientific field could also be calculated using T-index[35] that quantifies an h-index[37, 38] weighed by the ICr of an author in a published paper. Both the API (Table 3) and T-index may be calculated and stored by scientometric databases such as Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus, and ORCID for further use such as by employers and funding agencies to evaluate the impact of an individual as an author of scientific publications (Figure 1, Step 4).

Author PP PT Pp/PT PT-PP YC YF YC-YF (PT-PP)/(YC-YF) Log PP API
Author 1 25 200 0.125 175 2020 1995 25 0.005 1.398 0.007
Author 2 75 200 0.375 125 2020 1995 25 0.015 1.875 0.028
Author 3 125 200 0.625 75 2020 1995 25 0.025 2.097 0.052
Author 5 175 200 0.875 25 2020 1995 25 0.035 2.243 0.079
Author 6 200 200 1 0 2020 1995 25 0.040 2.301 0.092
Table 3:

An example of calculating API of different authors who published the same number of papers (e.g., 200) in their publishing careers of 25 years.

DISCUSSION

Unfair assignment of authorship[1,8,9,39–43] and superfluous authorship credit counting based on citation dependent metrics[23,44-51] are two major ongoing concerns in scientific communications.

While unfair authorship assignment can at least partially be tackled by declarations of author contribution,[11,33,52] the impact of authorship can be measured quantitatively using the h-index and altmetrics[37,53–55]

Major journals require declaration of author contribution either in the open-ended format or in a journal specific format following either ICMJE guidelines or CRediT. However, a declaration of author contribution in a quantitative manner is yet to be adopted. It can be noted that 70% of the respondents (n=370) who participated in an online survey recommended to declare author contribution in a quantitative manner.[36]

Quantitative author contribution eventually can also help to minimize the superfluous authorship credit counting based on using the citation dependent metrics more fairly according to the quantitative contribution to the paper or by calculating API.[35, 36]

Declarations of quantitative intellectual contribution can be captured at any stage during the submission. However, it might be more practical to capture quantitative contribution prior to finalizing the accepted submission or during the submission of the revised version. This is mainly because revision of the manuscript, according to the inputs from the reviewers and editor(s), could be considered as an IA, hence can be added for the calculation of quantitative contribution such as ICr.

This will allow identification of major contributions of the author in the production of a paper, consistent with current standards.[56] In addition, the quantitative contribution may be further used to quantify the performance (contribution) of an individual in scientific publications using the API.[36] This also allows each discipline to flexibly implement their idiosyncratic authorship culture.[57, 58]

These quantifications will allow clear and explicit deliberation among authors, avoiding conflict,[59] as well as public declaration of contributions for each publication, avoiding unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship, additional advantages arise when these data are combined across articles.

We suggest these to be established based on both journals’ databases, as well as by proposed mandatory declarations in progress reports to all international funding agencies.

With these practical suggestions in hand, we urge the scientific communities and relevant stakeholders such as publishers to adopt a quantitative tool to more accurately capture the contributions of an author. The proposed approach might serve as a starting point or template from which to find universally acceptable solutions.

We believe both the journal publishers and international funding agencies can play key-roles in this process. This will inevitably allow the employers to recruit and promote the deserving candidates based on deeper insight into their merits. This will also be an important tool for funding agencies, as it is in their (and tax-payers’) interest to understand whom they fund, and they have the leverage to require such. Nonetheless, this will require a world-wide concerted strategic effort that also includes editors and researchers.

CONCLUSION

Here we provide several practical approaches for diverse fields of science to broadly adopt means to quantify authors’ contributions to publications. Further, stakeholders like publishers and funding agencies are encouraged to work together to implement these relatively simple steps to resolve several important flaws in the current anachronistic scientific byline.

Cite this article

Rahman MT, Verhagen JV. Implementing Quantitative Declarations of Authorship Contribution: A Call to Action. J Scientometric Res. 2023;12(2):431-5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Dr. Barry Green (Fellow, John B. Pierce Laboratory) for valuable feedback.

References

  1. Shapiro DW, Wenger NS, Shapiro MF. The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994;271:438-42. [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert T, Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes : a guide for new researchers. COPE Rep. 2003:32-4. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hayter M, Noyes J, Perry L, Pickler R, Roe B, Watson R, et al. Who writes, whose rights, and who’s right? Issues in authorship. J. Adv. Nurs. 2013;69:2599-601. [Google Scholar]
  4. Patience GS, Galli F, Patience PA, Boffito DC. Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLoS One. 2019;14:1-20. [Google Scholar]
  5. Spiegel D, Keith-Speigel P. Assignment of publication credits: Ethics and practices of psychologists. Am. Psychol. 1970;25:738-47. [Google Scholar]
  6. BĂśrner K. A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010;2:1-6. [Google Scholar]
  7. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The Science of Team Science: Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008;35:S77-S89. [Google Scholar]
  8. Larivière V, Desrochers N, Macaluso B, Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A, Sugimoto CR, et al. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2016;46:417-35. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vasilevsky NA, Hosseini M, Teplitzky S, Ilik V, Mohammadi E, Schneider J, et al. Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles. Account. Res. 2021;28:23-43. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ward-Fear G, Pauly GB, Vendetti JE, Shine R. Authorship Protocols Must Change to Credit Citizen Scientists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020;35:187-90. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brand A, Allen L, Altman M, Hlava M, Scott J. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn. Publ. 2015;28:151-55. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1994;271:469-71. [Google Scholar]
  13. Marusic A, Bosnjak L, Jeroncic A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23477 [Google Scholar]
  14. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. Br. Med. J. 2011;343:d6128 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bozeman B, Youtie J. Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2016;22:1717-43. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronin B. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2001;52:558-69. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dotson B, Slaughter RL. Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in three pharmacy journals. Am. J. Heal. Pharm. 2011;68:1730-4. [Google Scholar]
  18. Erlen JA, Siminoff LA, Sereika SM, Sutton LB. Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations. J. Prof. Nurs. 1997;13:262-70. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kennedy MS, Barnsteiner J, Daly J. Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2014;46:416-22. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kennedy D. Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems. Science. 2003;301(80):733 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gazni A, Sugimoto CR, Didegah F. Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2012;63:323-35. [Google Scholar]
  22. Larivière V, Gingras Y, Sugimoto CR, Tsou A. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2015;66:1323-32. [Google Scholar]
  23. Persson O, Glänzel W, Danell R. Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics. 2004;60:421-32. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge. Science. 2007;316(80):1036LP-39. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dotson B, McManus KP, Zhao JJ, Whittaker P. Authorship and characteristics of articles in pharmacy journals: changes over a 20-year interval. Ann. Pharmacother. 2011;45:357-63. [Google Scholar]
  26. Barão VA, Shyamsunder N, Yuan JC, Lee DJ, Assunção WG, Sukotjo C, et al. Authorship, collaboration, and funding trends in implantology literature: analysis of five journals from 2005 to 2009. Implant Dent. 2011;20:68-75. [Google Scholar]
  27. Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K. Author, contributor or just a signer? A quantitative analysis of authorship trends in the field of bioethics. Bioethics. 2006;20:213-20. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schrock JB, Kraeutler MJ, McCarty EC. Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014. Am. J. Sports Med. 2016;44:1857-60. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vinther S, Rosenberg J. Authorship trends over the past fifty years in the Journal of the Danish Medical Association (Danish: Ugeskrift for Laeger). Dan. Med. J. 2012;59:A4390 [Google Scholar]
  30. Chow DS, Ha R, Filippi CG. Increased rates of authorship in radiology publications: a bibliometric analysis of 142,576 articles published worldwide by radiologists between 1991 and 2012. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015;204:W52-7. [Google Scholar]
  31. Weeks WB, Wallace AE, Kimberly BCS. Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc. Sci. Med. 2004;59:1949-54. [Google Scholar]
  32. Levsky ME, Rosin A, Coon TP, Enslow WL, Miller MA. A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995-2005. South Med J. 2007;100:371-5. [Google Scholar]
  33. International Committee for Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. 2019:1 [Google Scholar]
  34. Verhagen JV, Wallace KJ, Collins SC, Scott TR. QUAD system offers fair shares to all authors. Nature. 2003;426:602 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rahman MT, Regenstein JM, Kassim NLA, Haque N. The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper. J Informetr. 2017;11:275-81. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rahman MT, Regenstein JM, Kassim ANL, Karim MM. Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index. Account Res. 2021 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  37. Costas R, Bordons M. The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. J Informetr. 2007;1:193-203. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  38. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16569-72. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  39. Kovacs J. Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:509-12. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith E, Hunt M, Master Z. Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries. BMC Med. Ethics. 2014;15:42 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  41. Boyer S, Ikeda T, Lefort MC, Malumbres-Olarte J, Schmidt JM. Percentage-based author contribution index. A universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 2017;2:1-9. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  42. Marusic A, Bates T, Anic A, Marusic M. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2006;22:1035-44. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  43. Hagen NT. Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias. J. Informetr. 2014;8:310-7. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  44. Waltman L, van Eck NJ. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. J. Informetr. 2015;9:872-94. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  45. Abbas AM. Weighted indices for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authorship. Scientometrics. 2011;88:107-31. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  46. Thonon F, Boulkedid R, Delory T, Rousseau S, Saghatchian M, van Harten W, et al. Measuring the outcome of biomedical research : A systematic literature review. PLoS One. 2015;10:1-14. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang CT. The e-Index, complementing the h-index for excess citations. PLoS One. 2009;4:2-5. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  48. Aziz NA, Rozing MP. Profit (p)-Index: the degree to which authors profit from co-authors. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59814 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  49. Sahoo S. Analyzing research performance: proposition of a new complementary index. Scientometrics. 2016;108:489-504. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  50. Assimakis N, Adam M. A new author’s productivity index: P-index. Scientometrics. 2010;85:415-27. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  51. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. J. Informetr. 2016;10:365-91. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  52. McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Jamieson KH, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018;115:2557-60. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  53. Priem J, Hemminger BM. Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday. 2010:15 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  54. Gumpenberger C, Glänzel W, Gorraiz J. The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics. 2016;108:977-82. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  55. Glänzel W. On the h-index – A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact. Scientometrics. 2006;67:315-21. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  56. Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci. Adv. 2017;3:e1700404 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  57. Tsao CI, Roberts LW. Authorship in scholarly manuscripts: practical considerations for resident and early career physicians. Acad. Psychiatry. 2009;33:76-9. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  58. Stubbs C. The serious business of listing authors. Nature. 1997;388:320 [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]
  59. Ilakovac V, Fister K, Marusic M, Marusic A. Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. Cmaj. 2007;176:41-6. [CrossRef] | [Google Scholar]

Related Articles