Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06314v2
• Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 07:33:17 GMT
• Title: Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution
• Authors: Abdelghani Maddi, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva,
• Abstract summary: The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal PLOS ONE.<n> 9.14% of articles feature at least one author with inappropriate authorship, affecting over 14,000 individuals.<n>Inappropriate authorship is more concentrated in Asia, Africa, and specific European countries like Italy.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of authorship attributions in scientific publications, focusing on the fairness and precision of individual contributions within academic works. The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal PLOS ONE, covering the period from January 2018 to June 2023. It examines the authorship attributions within these publications to try and determine the prevalence of inappropriate authorship. It also investigates the demographic and professional profiles of affected authors, exploring trends and potential factors contributing to inaccuracies in authorship. Surprisingly, 9.14% of articles feature at least one author with inappropriate authorship, affecting over 14,000 individuals (2.56% of the sample). Inappropriate authorship is more concentrated in Asia, Africa, and specific European countries like Italy. Established researchers with significant publication records and those affiliated with companies or nonprofits show higher instances of potential monetary authorship. Our findings are based on contributions as declared by the authors, which implies a degree of trust in their transparency. However, this reliance on self-reporting may introduce biases or inaccuracies into the dataset. Further research could employ additional verification methods to enhance the reliability of the findings. These findings have significant implications for journal publishers, highlighting the necessity for robust control mechanisms to ensure the integrity of authorship attributions. Moreover, researchers must exercise discernment in determining when to acknowledge a contributor and when to include them in the author list. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the credibility and fairness of academic publications.

Related papers

• Rethinking Review Citations: Impact on Scientific Integrity [0.0]
  The proliferation of surveys and review articles in academic journals has impacted citation metrics like impact factor and h-index.<n>This work investigates the implications of this trend, focusing on the field of Computer Science.<n>We advocate for prioritizing citations of primary research in journal articles to uphold citation integrity and ensure fair recognition of substantive contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T11:02:31Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review. The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system. We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• 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)
• Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023 [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T22:20:34Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [55.33653554387953]
  Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) has led to numerous literature reviews aimed at collecting and fragmented information.<n>This paper presents a thorough analysis of these literature reviews within the PAMI field.<n>We try to address three core research questions: (1) What are the prevalent structural and statistical characteristics of PAMI literature reviews; (2) What strategies can researchers employ to efficiently navigate the growing corpus of reviews; and (3) What are the advantages and limitations of AI-generated reviews compared to human-authored ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• 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)
• Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References [3.607567777043649]
  This study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not. By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T19:51:44Z)
• Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers [0.7988085110283119]
  Retracting academic papers may have far-reaching consequences for retracted authors and their careers.<n>Our findings suggest that retractions may impose a disproportionate impact on early-career authors.
  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)
• A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
  We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.