Bibliometrics for collaboration works
Paolo Rossi, Alessandro Strumia, Riccardo Torre

TL;DR
This paper proposes a fractional counting method for bibliometric metrics to fairly evaluate individual contributions in large scientific collaborations, addressing issues in co-authorship weighting.
Contribution
It introduces a theoretical and numerical framework for weighting co-authorship contributions using a fractional exponent, improving bibliometric assessments in large collaborations.
Findings
Fractional counting with exponent ~1 for citations.
Exponent ~1/3 to 1/2 for paper counts depending on collaboration size.
A fractionalized h-index that remains stable regardless of collaboration size.
Abstract
An important issue in bibliometrics is the weighing of co-authorship in the production of scientific collaborations, which are becoming the standard modality of research activity in many disciplines. The problem is especially relevant in the field of high-energy physics, where collaborations reach 3000 authors, but it can no longer be ignored also in other domains, like medicine or biology. We present theoretical and numerical arguments in favour of weighing the individual contributions as where is the number of co-authors. When counting citations we suggest the exponent , that corresponds to fractional counting. When counting the number of papers we suggest , with the former (latter) value more appropriate for larger (smaller) collaborations. We expect and verify that the index scales as the square root…
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
Topicsscientometrics and bibliometrics research · Research Data Management Practices
