Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet
Alphabetization and the skewing of first authorship towards last names early in the alphabet
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joi.2013.03.002
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Thelwall, Mike
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Levitt, Jonathan M.;Thelwall, Mike
按字母顺序列出合著者姓氏的做法，无论他们的贡献如何，都很难有效地将研究成果分配给作者。本文比较了1995年和2010年18个社会科学领域中两作者、三作者和四作者文章中按字母顺序（按作者排序）的合著者文章的百分比，以评估这种做法的普遍程度。除了一个学科外，所有学科都有一定程度的知识化，但不同学科之间的知识化程度差异很大。平均而言，这一水平随着时间的推移略有增加，但在一些学科中大幅增加，在其他学科中则有所下降，这表明非专业化的做法并未消失。字母顺序和第一作者在字母表开头附近的比例之间的高度相关性证实了字母顺序的高比例可能会影响研究信贷的适当分配。在科学和人文学科中也发现了类似的模式。最后，由于某种程度的知识化在社会科学学科中几乎是普遍的，这种做法可能会影响整个社会科学的职业生涯，因此似乎是站不住脚的。(C)2013爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
The practice of listing co-author surnames in alphabetical order, irrespective of their contribution, can make it difficult to effectively allocate research credit to authors. This article compares the percentages of articles with co-authors in alphabetical order (alphabetization) for two-author, three-author and four-author articles in eighteen social sciences in 1995 and 2010 to assess how widespread this practice is. There is some degree of alphabetization in all disciplines except one but the level varies substantially between disciplines. This level is increasing slightly over time, on average, but it has increased substantially in a few disciplines and decreased in others, showing that the practice of alphabetization is not fading away. A high correlation between alphabetical order and the proportion of first authors near the beginning of the alphabet confirms that high percentages of alphabetical order could affect the appropriate allocation of research credit. Similar patterns were found for science and the humanities. Finally, since some degree of alphabetization is almost universal in social science disciplines, this practice may be affecting careers throughout the social sciences and hence seems indefensible. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.