My part is bigger than yours -- assessment within a group of peers

TL;DR

This paper introduces models to aggregate expert opinions on individual contributions within group projects, aiming to achieve consensus on each member's share based on their significance.

Contribution

It proposes simple, scalable models that link expert opinions to their assessed contribution, facilitating fairer attribution in collaborative efforts.

Findings

Models effectively aggregate peer opinions

Greater contribution importance increases opinion weight

Applicable beyond scientific paper authorship

Abstract

A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. The reward, however, is very frequently financial. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. Different authors may have various opinions on the matter; even worse, their opinions may have different relevance. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts. In this approach, the more significant the contribution of a given expert, the greater the importance of his opinion. The presented method can be considered an attempt to find consensus among peers involved in the same project. Hence, its applications may go beyond the proposed study example of writing a scientific paper.