Measuring Co-Authorship and Networking-Adjusted Scientific Impact

Abstract

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I ₁ for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I ₁ papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, I _n is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least I _n papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I ₁ depends on the number of papers authored N _p . The power exponent R of the relationship between I ₁ and N _p categorizes scientists as solitary ( R>2.5), nuclear ( R = 2.25–2.5), networked ( R = 2–2.25), extensively networked ( R = 1.75–2) or collaborators ( R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. I _n similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.