A new system of authorship best assessment.

Luca Saba, Michele Porcu, Gianluca De Rubeis, Antonella Balestrieri, Alessandra Serra, Mauro Giovanni Carta
Author Information
  1. Luca Saba: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy.
  2. Michele Porcu: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy.
  3. Gianluca De Rubeis: Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo Forlanini, Roma, Lazio, Italy.
  4. Antonella Balestrieri: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy.
  5. Alessandra Serra: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy.
  6. Mauro Giovanni Carta: Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Sardegna, Italy.

Abstract

Purpose: The standard bibliometric indexes ("-quotient "-," "2-," "-," "-," "-," and "-" index) do not considered the research' position in the author list of the paper. We proposed a new methodology, System of Authorship Best Assessment (SABA), to characterize the scientific output based on authors' position.
Material and Methods: Four classes S1A, S1B, S2A, and S2B include only papers where the researcher is in first, first/last, first/second/last, and first/second/second-last/last position respectively were used for the calculation of -index and number of citations The system was tested with Noble prize winners controlled with researchers matched for -index. The different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B was calculated and compared.
Results: The percentage differences in Noble prize winners between S2B--index versus Global -index and number of citations is very lower comparing with control group (median 4.15% [adjusted 95% CI, 2.54-5.30] vs 9.00 [adjusted 95% CI, 7.16-11.84], < 0.001; average difference 8.7% vs 20.3%). All different in percentage between standard bibliometric index and S2B except two (2- and -index) were significantly lower among Noble prize compared with control group.
Conclusion: The SABA methodology better weight the research impact by showing that for excellent profiles the S2B is similar to global values whereas for other researchers there is a significant difference.

Keywords

References

  1. EMBO Rep. 2009 Jan;10(1):2-6 [PMID: 19079129]
  2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72 [PMID: 16275915]
  3. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 May 1;74(1):172-8 [PMID: 18990506]
  4. PLoS One. 2021 Jun 28;16(6):e0253397 [PMID: 34181681]
  5. Science. 2008 Oct 17;322(5900):371 [PMID: 18927373]
  6. J Med Ethics. 2013 Aug;39(8):509-12 [PMID: 22865926]
  7. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Oct;22(10):781-91 [PMID: 25558501]
  8. Nature. 2012 Oct 18;490(7420):335-6 [PMID: 23075965]
  9. Environ Eng Sci. 2017 Jan 1;34(1):51-61 [PMID: 28115824]
  10. Nature. 2007 Dec 20;450(7173):1165 [PMID: 18097387]
  11. Account Res. 2018;25(4):254-258 [PMID: 29587536]
  12. Med Health Care Philos. 2017 Mar;20(1):51-59 [PMID: 27522373]
  13. EMBO Rep. 2009 May;10(5):416-7 [PMID: 19415071]
  14. JAMA. 1997 Aug 20;278(7):579-85 [PMID: 9268280]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0""-S2B-indexstandardbibliometricindexpositionNobleprizepercentagenewmethodologySABAnumbercitationssystemwinnersresearchersdifferentcomparedlowercontrolgroup[adjusted95%CIvsdifferencePurpose:indexes"-quotient"2-"-"consideredresearch'authorlistpaperproposedSystemAuthorshipBestAssessmentcharacterizescientificoutputbasedauthors'MaterialMethods:FourclassesS1AS1BS2Aincludepapersresearcherfirstfirst/lastfirst/second/lastfirst/second/second-last/lastrespectivelyusedcalculationtestedcontrolledmatchedcalculatedResults:differencesS2B--indexversusGlobalcomparingmedian415%254-530]900716-1184]<0001average87%203%excepttwo2-significantlyamongConclusion:betterweightresearchimpactshowingexcellentprofilessimilarglobalvalueswhereassignificantauthorshipbestassessmentAbstractingindexingbibliometrics

Similar Articles

Cited By