Related papers: Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023

Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18331v1
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:20:34 GMT
Title: Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023
Authors: Lokman I. Meho, Elie A. Akl,
Abstract summary: Between 2019 and 2023, sixteen universities increased their research output by over fifteen times the global average. This study detected patterns suggesting a reliance on unconventional authorship practices, such as gift, honorary, and sold authorship, to inflate publication metrics. The study underscores the need for reforms by universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking agencies, accreditation bodies, scholarly publishers, and researchers to maintain academic integrity and ensure the reliability of global ranking systems.
Score: 0.0
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Abstract: Between 2019 and 2023, sixteen universities increased their research output by over fifteen times the global average, alongside significant changes in authorship dynamics (e.g., decreased first authorship, rise in hyperprolific authors, increased multi-affiliations, and increased authors per publication rate). Using bibliometric methods, this study detected patterns suggesting a reliance on unconventional authorship practices, such as gift, honorary, and sold authorship, to inflate publication metrics. The study underscores the need for reforms by universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking agencies, accreditation bodies, scholarly publishers, and researchers to maintain academic integrity and ensure the reliability of global ranking systems.

Related papers

Analysis of the ICML 2023 Ranking Data: Can Authors' Opinions of Their Own Papers Assist Peer Review in Machine Learning? [52.00419656272129]
We conducted an experiment during the 2023 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) We received 1,342 rankings, each from a distinct author, pertaining to 2,592 submissions. We focus on the Isotonic Mechanism, which calibrates raw review scores using author-provided rankings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-24T01:51:23Z)
ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models [56.08917291606421]
ResearchAgent is a large language model-powered research idea writing agent. It generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-11T13:36:29Z)
Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
Position: AI/ML Influencers Have a Place in the Academic Process [82.2069685579588]
We investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-24T20:05:49Z)
Repeatability, Reproducibility, Replicability, Reusability (4R) in Journals' Policies and Software/Data Management in Scientific Publications: A Survey, Discussion, and Perspectives [1.446375009535228]
We have found a large gap between the citation-oriented practices, journal policies, recommendations, artifact Description/Evaluation guidelines, submission guides, technological evolution. The relationship between authors and scientific journals in their mutual efforts to jointly improve scientific results is analyzed. We propose recommendations for the journal policies, as well as a unified and standardized Reproducibility Guide for the submission of scientific articles for authors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-18T09:02:28Z)
Characterizing the effect of retractions on scientific careers [1.6758573326215693]
Retracting academic papers is a fundamental tool of quality control when the validity of papers or the integrity of authors is questioned. Previous studies have highlighted the adverse effects of retractions on citation counts and coauthors' citations. Our investigation focuses on the likelihood of authors exiting scientific publishing following a retraction, and the evolution of collaboration networks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-11T15:52:39Z)
How do Authors' Perceptions of their Papers Compare with Co-authors' Perceptions and Peer-review Decisions? [87.00095008723181]
Authors have roughly a three-fold overestimate of the acceptance probability of their papers. Female authors exhibit a marginally higher (statistically significant) miscalibration than male authors. At least 30% of respondents of both accepted and rejected papers said that their perception of their own paper improved after the review process.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-11-22T15:59:30Z)
Deep forecasting of translational impact in medical research [1.8130872753848115]
We develop a suite of representational and discriminative mathematical models of multi-scale publication data. We show that citations are only moderately predictive of translational impact as judged by inclusion in patents, guidelines, or policy documents. We argue that content-based models of impact are superior in performance to conventional, citation-based measures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-17T19:29:41Z)
Brain Drain and Brain Gain in Russia: Analyzing International Migration of Researchers by Discipline using Scopus Bibliometric Data 1996-2020 [77.34726150561087]
We analyze all researchers who have published with a Russian affiliation address in Scopus-indexed sources in 1996-2020. While Russia was a donor country in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has experienced a relatively balanced circulation of researchers in more recent years. Overall, researchers emigrating from Russia outnumbered and outperformed researchers immigrating to Russia.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-07T12:47:38Z)
The Demise of Single-Authored Publications in Computer Science: A Citation Network Analysis [0.0]
I analyze the DBLP database to study role of single author publications in the computer science literature between 1940 and 2019. I examine the demographics and reception by computing the population fraction, citation statistics, and scores of single author publications over the years.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-01-02T07:47:44Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.