An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing (1206.4863v1)

Abstract: There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication. In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors.

• The paper empirically analyzes the prevalence and factors influencing the use of alphabetical authorship across scientific disciplines.
• Based on 30 years of Web of Science data, the study found a decline in intentional alphabetical authorship from 8.9% (1981) to 3.7% (2011), noting its persistence in fields like mathematics and economics.
• The research highlights implications for author credit assignment in multi-author publications and suggests future work on alternative contribution-based credit models.

An Empirical Analysis of the Use of Alphabetical Authorship in Scientific Publishing

Ludo Waltman’s empirical paper analyzes the prevalence of alphabetical authorship across various scientific disciplines and elucidates the factors influencing its use. The paper provides a comprehensive examination of authorship practices, addressing both intentional and incidental alphabetical ordering of author names.

The paper's empirical foundation is robust, leveraging 30 years of publication data sourced from the Web of Science database, covering 19.6 million multi-author publications across all scientific fields. The findings indicate a clear decline in the intentional use of alphabetical authorship from 8.9% in 1981 to 3.7% in 2011. This decrease is attributed partially to incidental alphabetical authorship, a result of the growing mean number of authors per publication over time, which reduces the likelihood of purely alphabetical listing occurring by chance.

Waltman identifies disciplines such as mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics as fields where the intentional use of alphabetical authorship remains comparatively prevalent. Publications within these domains often utilize alphabetical ordering for credit allocation due to established norms rather than contributions-based ordering prevalent in other scientific areas.

A notable aspect of the analysis involves the concept of partial alphabetical authorship, where some authors are listed alphabetically while others are arranged based on contributions. This phenomenon is more pronounced in natural science fields characterized by a high number of authors per publication. The paper introduces an "alphabetization score" metric to quantify the degree of alphabetical ordering used in authorship lists, which provides additional insights into authorship behaviors, especially in publications with numerous contributors.

The implications of Waltman’s research for credit assignment in multiauthor publications are pivotal. In fields where alphabetical listing is common, strategies based merely on authorship order may misrepresent individual contributions, suggesting a need for refined methods that accurately reflect authors’ input beyond the conventional first-author dominance. Furthermore, in hyperauthorship publications—where the list of authors extends to dozens, such practices may further distort fair attribution of scholarly credit.

Moving forward, the analysis suggests several avenues for research and application. Investigating alternative models that account for contribution-based credit in disciplines with predominant alphabetical ordering could enhance impartiality in academic recognition. Moreover, a deeper exploration into the role of corresponding authors and their influence on contribution perceptions warrants consideration.

The data utilized in Waltman’s paper offers substantial opportunities for further inquiry, made accessible publicly for continued exploration into authorship practices. Follow-up studies may refine disciplinary categorizations and address potential biases in data interpretations or sample selections.

In summary, this paper contributes valuable understanding to authorship order practices, especially the shifting dynamics away from alphabetical ordering towards contribution-based systems across scientific disciplines. The decreasing trend in alphabetical authorship underscores the evolving landscape of scholarly collaboration and the necessity for adaptive credit assignment methodologies reflective of true collaborative efforts within research endeavors.