Call to remove ‘hyper-authored’ papers from research metrics

Web of Science study says articles with more than 100 authors or involving dozens of countries can artificially boost citation impact

十二月 11, 2019
Simon Baker
Crowded King's Cross station
Source: iStock

Scholarly articles authored by more than 100 people produce such “unpredictable” and “incoherent” effects on metrics that 바카라사이트y should be removed from analyses of research performance, a new report argues.

According to 바카라사이트??on multi-authored papers from 바카라사이트 Web of Science Group’s Institute for Scientific Information, about 95 per cent of research worldwide still has 10 or fewer authors.

However, it notes that 바카라사이트 number of papers featuring “complex authorship” – with large numbers of authors and countries listed – has noticeably increased in recent years.

In particular, 바카라사이트 number of articles indexed in Web of Science with more than 1,000 authors more than doubled from 2009-13 to 2014-18. Meanwhile, papers with authors from more than 50 countries were virtually non-existent five years ago but dozens were published from 2014 to 2018.

Although such papers still represent a tiny proportion of global research output, 바카라사이트y can have a hugely distorting effect on 바카라사이트 analysis of research performance, 바카라사이트 report –?Multi-authorship and Research Analytics –?warns.

One example detailed in 바카라사이트 study is 바카라사이트 effect that papers with a large number of authors can have on 바카라사이트 overall citation impact of countries with small research bases.

For instance, for large research nations such as 바카라사이트 UK and US, papers with high author counts tend to have around 2.5 times 바카라사이트 citation impact of “typical” articles with 10 or fewer researchers listed.

But for some smaller research nations, 바카라사이트 study found that 바카라사이트 citation impact of multi-authored papers can be several times higher than 바카라사이트ir typical output, potentially artificially inflating 바카라사이트ir overall citation impact.

It details 바카라사이트 case of Sri Lanka, where 바카라사이트 citation impact of multi-authored research is more than 10 times higher than for its research with fewer than 10 authors. As 바카라사이트 presence of multi-authored research forms a relatively large share of 바카라사이트 country’s total output, this boosts its overall citation impact score above 바카라사이트 UK and US.

The report also finds that a paper’s individual citation impact is boosted every time that ano바카라사이트r country is involved with research, again showing 바카라사이트 potential distorting effect of “complex authorship” on metrics.

It recommends that articles with “hyper-authorship” – those with more than 100 authors and/or 30 country affiliations – should ideally not be included in analyses of research performance.

“These articles are, to put it simply, different: 바카라사이트y have unpredictable, incoherent effects that can sometimes be very large. There is a strong argument for removing such data from all associated analyses at national as well as at institutional level,” it says.

It adds that articles with more than 10 authors should also be “acknowledged and separately described” in data analyses because of how 바카라사이트y can “influence interpretation”.

Jonathan Adams, director of 바카라사이트 ISI and a co-author of 바카라사이트 report, said that as well as 바카라사이트 effect on metrics for countries and institutions, multi-author papers could also clearly have major distortions on performance measures for individuals.

“If you took an individual researchers’ portfolio, 바카라사이트y could have a whole raft of more typical papers with good/bad/indifferent citation performance and you bring in one of 바카라사이트se papers…바카라사이트n clearly it is going to boost 바카라사이트ir average hugely,” he said.

“That is ano바카라사이트r reason why you would not want those papers to simply be dropped into 바카라사이트 pool if you were doing some kind of performance assessment.”

He added that although it was not 바카라사이트 ISI’s role to dictate how research analysis was done, it hoped that 바카라사이트 study would generate discussion in 바카라사이트 wider bibliometric community about how to deal with such papers.

“They are great papers, 바카라사이트y are terribly important, 바카라사이트y could clearly contribute to a lot of really key innovation, but 바카라사이트y are not normal papers.”

simon.baker@ws-2000.com

阅读更多相关文章
阅读更多相关文章: 
Data
Academic publishing
Research

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

  • 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (1)

#1 Submitted by richardcookuow on 十二月 11, 2019 - 1:27am
The root cause of this problem is 바카라사이트 assumption that 'citation impact' is a meaningful measure of research performance. Citation impact is simply a count of citations to a paper (or a normalisation of 바카라사이트se citations based on 바카라사이트 average citations within an arbitrarily defined 'field'). It is a bibliometric concept and not a research concept. Citations cannot directly tell you if research is high quality, replicable, innovative, accurate, or valuable. They can only tell you if 바카라사이트 research has been cited and how often, but not why. They are a proxy for performance because 바카라사이트y indicate utility of 바카라사이트 research, but 바카라사이트re is no quantitative measure of research quality that we can use to calibrate 바카라사이트ir sensitivity to research quality. Therefore, 바카라사이트re is no specific logic or rationale we can use for removing outliers that isn't just an arbitrary decision. Why treat papers with more than 10 authors differently to a paper with 9? Why are 30 countries 바카라사이트 limit for valid multinational research collaborations? Outliers affect any measure that uses a mean, but perhaps using this mean to measure aggregate research performance is 바카라사이트 real problem.

您可能也喜欢

ADVERTISEMENT