How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21443293 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Martin Jakab (0000-0003-2110-5090, Paracelsus Medical University, corresponding author), Eva Kittl (Paracelsus Medical University), Tobias Kiesslich (0000-0001-5403-9478, Paracelsus Medical University) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 129 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1299-1328 |
| Publication date | 2024-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Scientometrics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0138-9130 • E-ISSN: 1588-2861 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-024-04928-1 |
| OpenAlex | W4391215209 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 69 |
Publishing in academic journals is primary to disseminate research findings, with authorship reflecting a scientist’s contribution, yielding academic recognition, and carrying significant financial implications. Author numbers per article have consistently risen in recent decades, as demonstrated in various journals and fields. This study is a comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in biomedical papers from the NCBI PubMed database between 2000 and 2020, utilizing the Entrez Direct (EDirect) E-utilities to retrieve bibliometric data from a dataset of 17,015,001 articles. For all publication types, the mean author number per publication significantly increased over the last two decades from 3.99 to 6.25 (+ 57%, p r 2 = 0.99) with an average relative increase of 2.28% per year. This increase was highest for clinical trials (+ 5.67 authors per publication, + 97%), the smallest for case reports (+ 1.01 authors, + 24%). The proportion of single/solo authorships dropped by a factor of about 3 from 17.03% in 2000 to 5.69% in 2020. The percentage of eleven or more authors per publication increased ~ sevenfold, ~ 11-fold and ~ 12-fold for reviews, editorials, and systematic reviews, respectively. Confirming prior findings, this study highlights the escalating authorship in biomedical publications. Given potential unethical practices, preserving authorship as a trustable indicator of scientific performance is critical. Understanding and curbing questionable authorship practices and inflation are imperative, as discussed through relevant literature to tackle this issue
Bibliometrics · Descriptive statistics · Impact factor · Library science · Political science · Publishing · Statistics · Academic Writing and Publishing · Computer Science · Law · Mathematics · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Authorship practices and experiences in a South African Faculty of Health Sciences
Eponyms in Science
The emerging phenomenon of multiple corresponding authorship in China
The complex ecosystem of hyperprolific authors
A note on the topic of single-author articles in science
Using bibliometrics to detect questionable authorship and affiliation practices and their impact on global research metrics
Authorship order and performance from the perspective of field and academic capital
The Ethics of Authorship
Authority and Authorship
When money talks, the science falls silent
Consortium Authorship
Putting Self-Peripheralization in the Global Knowledge Order
Hyperauthorship
A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines
Team size matters
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications
Research coauthorship 1900–2020
Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations
Frequency and Factors Associated With Honorary Authorship in Indian Biomedical Journals
Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals
| Citations per year | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |