7  Measuring research output

7.1 Introduction

Measuring the research output of any entity (e.g., an individual, an organization, a country, or a field) requires that 1) such an output exists (e.g. an article), and 2) that the link between the output and the entity be established through authorship. This chapter discusses the role of authorship in science and the practices, norms, and guidelines that influence the naming and ordering of authors.

7.2 The functions of scientific authorship

According to Birnholtz (2006), the functions of authorship in science are to assign credit, ownership, and responsibility for discoveries, as well as to enable the existence of a reputation economy.

7.2.1 Credit

Peer recognition is the main reward obtained by researchers; this symbolic capital then allows them to obtain other rewards with symbolic but also economic value. It is therefore important for researchers to obtain this credit for their contributions and the codes of ethics of disciplinary associations (and, to a lesser extent, the editorial policies of journals) emphasize the importance of giving all contributors the credit due to them. It is thanks to authorship that the system of recognition of science can function, by granting an institutionalized form of credit (awards and positions, for instance) to researchers who have made important contributions to the advancement of knowledge.

7.2.2 Ownership and responsibility

The link between authorship and ownership applies less to science than to other domains (e.g. the literary domain), because of the Mertonian norm of disinterestedness. According to Biagioli et al. (2003), only the original expression of scientific discoveries, generally under textual form, is the property of the authors, which grants them protection against plagiarism. Responsibility, which can be considered the other side of the ownership coin, has more relevance in science. The proper functioning of the scientific reward system relies on its ability to reward those who contribute to the goal and follow the norms, and its ability to punish (or at least not reward) those who act against the goals and norms of the system. Scientific fraud (e.g. fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) is an example of non-compliance with the standards of science having a negative impact on the career of the researchers involved (Mongeon 2015), and even on their institutions and their disciplines (Azoulay et al. 2015). Although they remain relatively rare, the increase in cases of scientific fraud has contributed to the development of authorship guidelines which, as we will see later, emphasize the responsibility of researchers for the validity of the articles’ content.

7.2.3 Reputation economy

Authorship, among other things, provides scientific capital to the researcher. Once known and recognized by the other researchers in the field, this scientific capital is converted into symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1987). Authorship is the basis of the social stratification of scientific fields, and all the layers of the hierarchy of rewards, from the simple citation to the Nobel Prize (Cole and Cole 1973). There is no social structure of science without authorship.

7.3 Authorship practices an norms

The byline of an article ultimately depends on two elements:

1. The nature and extent of the contribution of those involved in the works (who did what?)
2. The decisions made about naming and ordering authors (who will be an author, and in what order will the names be listed?)

These questions can be difficult to answer in a context where science is increasingly complex and collaborative (Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi 2007).

7.3.1 Collaboration and division of labour

Laudel (2002) identified six types of collaboration related to the types of contributions that individuals can make to a given research project:

• Collaboration involving a division of intellectual labour. Collaborators with a shared goal who make substantial intellectual contribution towards that goal. They are to some degree co-leading the research.

• Service collaboration. Researchers who are called upon to produce routine work that require a specific expertise.

• Provision of access to research equipment. The collaborator does not perform any tasks related to the project but provides material, equipment, data, etc. used for the research.

• Transmission of know-how. The non-creative transmission of information stored in memory that is useful for the research.

• Mutual stimulation: The stimulation and engagement through informal interactions that helps researchers develop their ideas.

• Trusted assessorship: Providing feedback on the work.

Not all these forms of collaboration lead to authorship. Laudel (2002) found that authorship is usually attributed to collaborators of the first two types only.

Subramanyam (1983) proposed four types of collaboration related to the hierarchical status of the involved individuals:

• Same-status collaborations.

• Professor-student collaborations.

• Supervisor-assistant collaborations.

• Researcher-consultant collaborations.

The number of people required for a given project can have an influence on the types of collaboration that will take place. According to Walsh and Lee (2015), larger teams tend to lead to more bureaucratic organizational structures, characterized by increased division of labour, specialization and standardization of tasks, hierarchical relationships, and decentralized decision-making.

Assigning authorship can be difficult when a work is the outcome of  many individuals with different statuses, roles, and contributions. Decisions have to be made about 1) who will be an author (not all contributions lead to authorship) and 2) the order of the names, which is usually meant to indicate what share of the credit each one deserves (Pontille 2006). It can be extremely difficult for an external observer to determine who did what or what share of credit everyone deserves (Rennie, Yank, and Emanuel 1997).

7.3.2 Naming authors

Unlike the concept of author in literature, which is linked with writing, the concept of author in science is not and other forms of contributions can lead to authorship. Moreover, as Pontille (2006) points out, the act of writing is not necessarily sufficient to obtain author status, and it is also possible to be an author without writing. So what kind of contributions do lead to authorship? Contributions involving the division of intellectual labour (the first type of collaboration identified by Laudel (2002)). This link between substantial intellectual contribution and authorship generates little to no debate in the literature. However, whether authorship should be awarded to individuals with technical, routine, or less substantial contributions is not so clear.

Hagstrom (1964) tackles the question of authorship for technical contributions by looking at the historical context and distinguishing traditional collaboration from modern collaboration. He portrays the traditional technician as having few qualifications and being involved in the search for solutions to scientific problems but performing simple tasks designed and assigned by the scientist in exchange for economic capital. In contrast, the modern technician is a qualified professional performing complex tasks that the researcher employing them may not know how to perform themselves. This professionalization of the technician is nicely illustrated by Knorr-Cetina (1999) who tells the story of an established researcher who mastered the theories of his field but was unable to execute the technical tasks their research required. This type of relationship between the scientist and the technician is not generalized and technical contributions do not always lead to authorship today (Haeussler and Sauermann 2015; Larivière et al. 2016; Laudel 2002).

The type of contribution is not always the only determinant. The same task performed by a paid technician or by another researcher may lead to authorship for the latter but not the former (Pontille 2016; Shibayama, Walsh, and Baba 2012).

The importance of a discovery can also affect authorship attribution. Jabbehdari and Walsh (2017) found that the individuals who performed technical or less substantial contributions are more often excluded from the byline of highly cited work.

The relationship between the nature and extent of a contribution and authorship is also determined by implicit disciplinary norms. Some type of contributions that often lead to authorship in a discipline may not (and may even be considered unethical) in another (Bozeman and Youtie 2016). For example, in sociology, writing remains one of the most important contribution and tends to be required to be an author (Pontille 2004). However, Pontille distinguishes French sociology from American sociology, where authorship norms are more inclusive. This highlights that the disciplinary context is not entirely independent from the local context. In physics, we find the special case of mega-collaborations leading to articles signed by hundreds (or thousands) of authors; a phenomena that Cronin (2001) calls “hyperauthorsip”. In this context, it is the affiliation to the collective and not a specific contribution to the publication, that justifies authorship (Biagioli et al. 2003; Birnholtz 2006; Knorr-Cetina 1999).

7.3.2.1 Guest authors, ghost authors, and acknowledgees

In some cases, the relationship between an individual’s contribution to a work and the authorship status can be weak or nonexistent. It is frequent for individuals to be named as (guest) authors despite having made very little or no contribution to the work, and for individuals to not appear on the byline despite having offered a significant contribution to the work (ghost authors) (Bates et al. 2004; Flanagin et al. 1998; Sismondo 2009; Mowatt et al. 2002; Wislar et al. 2011). Contributors excluded from the byline are sometimes acknowledged in the acknowledgements section of the article to signal their contribution to the work (Kassirer and Angell 1991). Paul-Hus et al. (2017) found that the disciplinary differences in the number of authors are greatly reduced when we consider combined authors and acknowledgees, which suggests that these differences are not a reflection of the different number of contributors involved, but also of disciplinary differences in authorship practices. Overall, the existence of guest authors, ghost authors, and acknowledgees suggests that the byline can misrepresent the composition and size of research teams.

7.3.3 Ordering authors

Authorship decisions are not only about who will be an author but also in what order the names will be listed, which is usually intended to reflect the importance of individual contributions to the work (Zuckerman 1968). In this section, we survey ordering approaches used in science.

7.3.3.1 Alphabetical order

Alphabetical order is sometimes used to distribute credit equally between members of the research team. It is also standard practice in some fields like Mathematics and Economics. This mode of ordering is also often used in hyperauthorship situations where specific individual contributions are difficult to capture and order (Knorr-Cetina 1999). Sometimes the authors will be grouped by institution or country first, and then ordered alphabetically within each group. The use of alphabetical in some cases but not always can generate some ambiguity since the first (or last) authors might be perceived as having made more important contributions than others even if that is not the case. Furthermore, it is possible for alphabetical ordering to occur by chance, sending a signal that authors may have contributed equally despite it not being the case (Zuckerman 1968).

7.3.3.2 Decreasing order of contribution

Authors can also be listed based on the importance of their contribution, the first authors having typically contributed the most. This is a dominant mode of name ordering in Social Sciences and Humanities where writing is key (Pontille 2004). One limitation of this approach is that there is only one author at any position in the list. This issue is sometimes addressed by adding a note in the byline indicating that some authors contributed equally to the work (Hu 2009). According to Zuckerman (1967), prominent researchers sometimes let their less well-known collaborators take first authorship, even if they may have contributed less.

7.3.3.3 From the outside in

A variant of the decreasing order of contribution exists predominantly some fields of natural or biomedical sciences where research often occurs in laboratories. The difference is that the two ends of the byline (the first and last author positions) are the most important. The first author tends to be a junior researcher (a PhD student or postdoc) who lead the experiment. The last author is the lab director. Other contributors are listed in decreasing order of contribution between these two poles, those who contributed the least being in the middle of the byline (Pontille 2006).

7.3.3.4 Hybrid (partial alphabetical order)

Zuckerman (1968) described another type of ordering that I call partial alphabetical order, in which a subset of authors are listed alphabetically to highlight the contribution of the other authors who are not part of the alphabetical list. This phenomenon was studied by Mongeon et al. (2017) who showed how alphabetical order is used in biomedical research to distinguish primary authors (at the beginning of the byline), the supervisory authors (at the end of the byline), and the others (in the middle of the byline, in alphabetical order).

7.3.4 Categorizing authors

Some scholars have proposed to divide authors in categories. Perneger et al. (2017) identified three types of authors in biomedical research:

• The thinker who designs the work, acquires funding for it, and revises the article.

• The soldier who provides material, administrative or technical support or participates in the data collection.

• The scribe who analyzes and interprets the results and drafts the article.

Similarly, Baerlocher et al. (2007) proposed the following categories:

• Primary authors participate in the planning and execution of the study, and in drafting the article. They are able to explain all the findings and share responsibility for the exactitude of the information reported in the article. They generally appear at the beginning of the byline.

• Senior/supervisory authors plan and supervise the study, and substantially revise the draft. Like primary authors, they can explain all the findings in the study and share responsibility for the exactitude of the information reported in the article. They are generally at the end of the byline.

• Contributing authors make a substantial contribution to the work but do not meet the criteria or primary and senior/supervisory authorship. They are not necessarily able to explain all of the findings of the study and they are not responsible for the exactitude of the information reported in the article. They generally appear in the middle of the byline.

7.3.5 Authorship guidelines

Scholarly societies and journal editors have developed authorship guidelines in response to the lack of standards in authorship practices (Osborne and Holland 2009), the increased number of authors on articles, and the increase in cases of scientific misconduct (Pontille 2016; Steen 2010) bringing forth the relationship between authorship and responsibility (Rennie and Flanagin 1994). Large research teams are most frequent in Natural Sciences, Engineering, and Health Sciences (Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi 2007), and misconduct is most frequent in the Health Sciences (Fang, Steen, and Casadevall 2012). It is thus not surprising that these are research areas where authorship guidelines are frequently found (Bošnjak and Marušić 2012; Wager 2007).

Journals rarely create their own authorship guidelines. Instead, they refer to the code of ethics of professional associations or publishers’ guidelines, which tend to refer to the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The ICMJE recommendations include four criteria that must be met by all authors of a paper:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published;
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Even though their adoption is not generalized even in the Medical field (Bošnjak and Marušić 2012) these recommendation have a wide influence beyond this field. For instance, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and major publishers like Elsevier, Springer-Nature, and Wiley-Blackwell refer to it.

Despite the existence of these guidelines, there is no consensus on what constitutes a substantial contribution that should lead to authorship (Claxton 2005). Even when they do mention the type of tasks that matter for authorship, guidelines remain vague regarding the magnitude of the contribution required, simply stating that it should be substantial. Editors themselves are not convinced of the efficacy of the guidelines for reducing practices like guest and ghost authorship (Wager 2009). In sum, while guidelines might be able to help research teams with their authorship decisions, they seem to have a limited effect on these practices, and to be unable to address unethical authorship issues.

7.3.6 Contribution statements

Rennie, Yank, and Emanuel (1997) proposed a model that would replace authors with a list of contributors and guarantors. In their model, contributors include everyone who contributed, no matter the nature and extent of their contribution, and guarantors are those contributors who are responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole. In addition, the article should include a description of the work done by each contributor. The model is recommended (but not required) by the ICMJE guidelines and the Council of Science Editors, and it is applied (although partially) by an increasingly large number of journals requiring that the respective contributions of the authors be indicated, typically in a contribution statement.

However, the informative value of these statements remains limited. Firstly, only the type (and not the extent) of contributions is indicated. According to Ilakovac et al. (2006), contribution statements are also imprecise as they rely on the limited memory (and limited motivation) of researchers who are asked to produce them. A third of the respondants to a survey indicated that contribution statements provide are not more informative than the order in which the authors are listed (Sauermann and Haeussler 2017).

7.4 Bibliometric indicators

7.4.1 Research output

There are two basic ways of counting the research contributions of an individual researcher or another entity (institution, country, etc.): one that does not take into account collaboration (full counting), and one that does take into account collaboration (fractional counting, harmonic counting, geometric counting, and arithmetic counting.

Methods of counting publications in bibliometrics

Indicator	Share of credit for the author in the ith position in a byline of N authors
Full counting	1
Fractional counting	\[ \dfrac{1}{N} \]
Harmonic counting	\[ \dfrac{\dfrac{1}{i}}{1+\dfrac{1}{2}+...+\dfrac{1}{N}} \]
Geometric counting	\[ \dfrac{2^{N-i}}{2^N-1} \]
Arithmetic counting	\[ \dfrac{N+1-i}{1+2+...+N} \]

A study by Hagen (2010) suggests that harmonic counting best fits empirical data on credit allocation between co-authors in chemistry, medicine and chemistry. However, full and fractional counting remain the most widely used indicators.

7.4.2 Collaboration

Bibliometric indicators can also be used to measure and characterize collaboration at the article level. The table below summarizes commonly used indicators of collaboration.

Bibliometric indicators of research collaboration

Indicator	Variable type	Description
Collaboration	Categorical	There is more than one author on the byline.
Interinstitutional collaboration	Categorical	There is more than one institution on the byline.
International collaboration	Categorical	There is more than one country on the byline.
Intersectoral collaboration	Categorical	There are institutions from more than one sector (e.g., university, industry, government) on the byline.
Team size	Numerical	The number of authors on the byline.

Note that collaboration can also be represented as a co-authorship network, in which two entities are linked when they appear together on the same publication.

7.5 References

Azoulay, Pierre, Jeffrey L Furman, Krieger, and Fiona Murray. 2015. “Retractions.” Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (5): 1118–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00469.

Baerlocher, Mark Otto, Marshall Newton, Tina Gautam, George Tomlinson, and Allan S Detsky. 2007. “The Meaning of Author Order in Medical Research.” Journal of Investigative Medicine 55 (4): 174–80. https://doi.org/10.2310/6650.2007.06044.

Bates, Tamara, Ante Anić, Matko Marušić, and Ana Marušić. 2004. “Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions.” JAMA 292 (1): 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.1.86.

Biagioli, Mario, Judith Crane, Pamela Derish, Mark Gruber, Drummond Rennie, and Richard Horton. 2003. “CSE Task Force on Authorship.” Draft White Paper [Sitio En Internet]. Encontrado En: Http://Www. Councilscienceeditors. Org/Services/Atf_whitepaper. Cfm.

Birnholtz, Jeremy P. 2006. “What Does It Mean to Be an Author? The Intersection of Credit, Contribution, and Collaboration in Science.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (13): 1758–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20380.

Bošnjak, Lana, and Ana Marušić. 2012. “Prescribed Practices of Authorship: Review of Codes of Ethics from Professional Bodies and Journal Guidelines Across Disciplines.” Scientometrics 93 (3): 751–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. Choses Dites. Paris: Editions de minuit.

Bozeman, Barry, and Jan Youtie. 2016. “Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-Authoring.” Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (6): 1717–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5.

Claxton, Larry D. 2005. “Scientific Authorship. Part 1. A Window into Scientific Fraud?” Mutation Research 589 (1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.

Cole, Jonathan R, and Stephen Cole. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cronin, Blaise. 2001. “Hyperauthorship: A Postmodern Perversion or Evidence of a Structural Shift in Scholarly Communication Practices?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 52 (7): 558–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097.

Fang, FC Ferric C, R Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. 2012. “Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (42): 17028–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

Flanagin, Annette, Lisa A Carey, Phil B Fontanarosa, Stephanie G Phillips, Brian P Pace, George D Lundberg, and Drummond Rennie. 1998. “Prevalence of Articles with Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals.” JAMA 280 (3): 222–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222.

Haeussler, C., and H. Sauermann. 2015. “The Anatomy of Teams: Division of Labor in Collaborative Knowledge Production.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2015 (1): 11383–83. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.11383abstract.

Hagen, Nils T. 2010. “Harmonic Publication and Citation Counting: Sharing Authorship Credit Equitably - Not Equally, Geometrically or Arithmetically.” Scientometrics 84 (3): 785–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0129-4.

Hagstrom, Warren O. 1964. “Traditional and Modern Forms of Scientific Teamwork.” Administrative Science Quarterly 9 (3): 241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391440.

Hu, Xiaojun. 2009. “Loads of Special Authorship Functions: Linear Growth in the Percentage of “Equal First Authors” and Corresponding Authors.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (11): 2378–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21164.

Ilakovac, V., K. Fister, M. Marusic, and A. Marusic. 2006. “Reliability of Disclosure Forms of Authors’ Contributions.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 176 (1): 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060687.

Jabbehdari, Sahra, and John P. Walsh. 2017. “Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, March, 016224391769719–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917697192.

Kassirer, Jerome P., and Marcia Angell. 1991. “On Authorship and Acknowledgments.” New England Journal of Medicine 325 (21): 1510–12. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199111213252112.

Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Larivière, Vincent, Nadine Desrochers, Benoît Macaluso, Philippe Mongeon, Adèle Paul-Hus, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2016. “Contributorship and Division of Labor in Knowledge Production.” Social Studies of Science 46 (3): 417435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046.

Laudel, Grit. 2002. “What Do We Measure by Co-Authorships?” Research Evaluation 11 (1): 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776961.

Mongeon, Philippe. 2015. “Costly Collaborations.” JASIST 15 (2): 125–45.

Mongeon, Philippe, Elise Smith, Bruno Joyal, and Vincent Larivière. 2017. “The Rise of the Middle Author: Investigating Collaboration and Division of Labor in Biomedical Research Using Partial Alphabetical Authorship.” Edited by Miguel A. Andrade-Navarro. PLOS ONE 12 (9): e0184601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184601.

Mowatt, Graham, Liz Shirran, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Drummond Rennie, Annette Flanagin, Veronica Yank, Graeme MacLennan, Peter C Gøtzsche, and Lisa A Bero. 2002. “Prevalence of Honorary and Ghost Authorship in Cochrane Reviews.” JAMA 287 (21): 2769–71. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2769.

Osborne, Jason W., and Abigail Holland. 2009. “What Is Authorship, and What Should It Be? A Survey of Prominent Guidelines for Determining Authorship in Scientific Publications.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (15). https://doi.org/10.7275/25PE-BA85.

Paul-Hus, Adèle, Philippe Mongeon, Maxime Sainte-Marie, and Vincent Larivière. 2017. “The Sum of It All: Revealing Collaboration Patterns by Combining Authorship and Acknowledgements.” Journal of Informetrics 11 (1): 8087.

Perneger, Thomas V, Antoine Poncet, Marc Carpentier, Thomas Agoritsas, Christophe Combescure, and Angèle Gayet-Ageron. 2017. “Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: Cross-Sectional Study of Researchers’ Roles and Author Order in the Annals of Internal Medicine.” BMJ Open 7 (6): e013898–98. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013898.

Pontille, David. 2004. La Signature Scientifique : Une Sociologie Pragmatique de l’attribution. Paris: CNRS.

———. 2006. “Qu’est-Ce Qu’un Auteur Scientifique.” Sciences de La Société 67: 77–93.

———. 2016. Signer Ensemble: Contribution Et Évaluation En Sciences. Paris: Economica.

Rennie, Drummond, and Annette Flanagin. 1994. “Authorship! Authorship! Guests, Ghosts, Grafters, and the Two-Sided Coin.” JAMA 271 (6): 469–69. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510300075043.

Rennie, Drummond, Veronica Yank, and Linda Emanuel. 1997. “When Authorship Fails: A Proposal to Make Contributors Accountable.” JAMA 278 (7): 579–79. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041.

Sauermann, Henry, and Carolin Haeussler. 2017. “Authorship and Contribution Disclosures.” Science Advances 3 (11): e1700404. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700404.

Shibayama, Sotaro, John P. Walsh, and Yasunori Baba. 2012. “Academic Entrepreneurship and Exchange of Scientific Resources: Material Transfer in Life and Materials Sciences in Japanese Universities.” American Sociological Review 77 (5): 804–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412452874.

Sismondo, Sergio. 2009. “Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences.” Social Studies of Science 39 (2): 171–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101047.

Steen, R. G. 2010. “Retractions in the Scientific Literature: Is the Incidence of Research Fraud Increasing?” Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (4): 249–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923.

Subramanyam, Krishnappa. 1983. “Bibliometric Studies of Research Collaboration: A Review.” Journal of Information Science 6 (1): 33–38.

Wager, Elizabeth. 2007. “Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians.” PLoS Medicine 4 (1): e34–34. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040034.

———. 2009. “Recognition, Reward and Responsibility: Why the Authorship of Scientific Papers Matters.” Maturitas 62 (2): 109–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.001.

Walsh, John P., and You-Na Lee. 2015. “The Bureaucratization of Science.” Research Policy 44 (8): 1584–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.04.010.

Wislar, Joseph S, Annette Flanagin, Phil B Fontanarosa, and Catherine D DeAngelis. 2011. “Honorary and Ghost Authorship in High Impact Biomedical Journals: A Cross Sectional Survey.” BMJ 343 (October): d6128–28. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128.

Wuchty, Stefan, BF Benjamin F Jones, and Brian Uzzi. 2007. “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge.” Science 316 (5827): 1036–39. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099.

Zuckerman, Harriet A. 1967. “The Sociology of the Nobel Prizes.” Scientific American. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/6065922.

———. 1968. “Patterns of Name Ordering Among Authors of Scientific Papers: A Study of Social Symbolism and Its Ambiguity.” American Journal of Sociology 74 (3): 276–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2775535.