The Authorship Dilemma: Alphabetical or Contribution?
Margareta Ackerman, Simina Br\^anzei

TL;DR
This paper uses a game theoretic model to compare alphabetical and contribution-based author ordering, revealing their impacts on research quality, collaboration, and free riding.
Contribution
It introduces a game theoretic framework to analyze author ordering conventions and their effects on research dynamics and free riding.
Findings
Alphabetical ordering can enhance research quality.
Contribution-based ordering increases collaboration and publication count.
Free riding can occur under any scheme, worst under contribution-based ordering.
Abstract
Scientific communities have adopted different conventions for ordering authors on publications. Are these choices inconsequential, or do they have significant influence on individual authors, the quality of the projects completed, and research communities at large? What are the trade-offs of using one convention over another? In order to investigate these questions, we formulate a basic two-player game theoretic model, which already illustrates interesting phenomena that can occur in more realistic settings. We find that alphabetical ordering can improve research quality, while contribution-based ordering leads to a denser collaboration network and a greater number of publications. Contrary to the assumption that free riding is a weakness of the alphabetical ordering scheme, this phenomenon can occur under any contribution scheme, and the worst case occurs under contribution-based…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGame Theory and Applications · Business Strategy and Innovation · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
