The value and credits of n-authors publications
Lutz Bornmann, Antonio Osorio

TL;DR
This paper proposes a practical axiomatic method to evaluate the value of multi-author publications, considering collaboration benefits, and compares theoretical estimates with empirical data across disciplines.
Contribution
It introduces a novel axiomatic approach to quantify the value of n-authors publications based solely on the number of authors, validated against real-world data.
Findings
Theoretical values closely match empirical data in some disciplines.
The method provides a fairer way to assess collaborative research contributions.
Discipline-specific differences affect the accuracy of the proposed valuation.
Abstract
Collaboration among researchers is becoming increasingly common, which raises a large number of scientometrics questions for which there is not a clear and generally accepted answer. For instance, what value should be given to a two-author or three-author publication with respect to a single-author publication? This paper uses axiomatic analysis and proposes a practical method to compute the expected value of an n-authors publication that takes into consideration the added value induced by collaboration in contexts in which there is no prior or ex-ante information about the publication's potential merits or scientific impact. The only information required is the number of authors. We compared the obtained theoretical values with the empirical values based on a large dataset from the Web of Science database. We found that the theoretical values are very close to the empirical values for…
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.
