Blaise Cronin

Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the ‘hyperauthorship’ phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered.

Using the H-index to Rank Influential Information Scientists

The authors apply a new bibliometric measure, the h-index (Hirsch, 2005), to the literature of information science. Faculty rankings based on raw citation counts are compared with those based on h-counts. There is a strong positive correlation between the two sets of rankings. It is shown how the h-index can be used to express the broad impact of a scholar’s research output over time in more nuanced fashion than straight citation counts.

Bias in peer review

Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications of research on bias in peer review. This review provides a brief description of the function, history, and scope of peer review; articulates and critiques the conception of bias unifying research on bias in peer review; characterizes and examines the empirical, methodological, and normative claims of bias in peer review research; and assesses possible alternatives to the status quo. We close by identifying ways to expand conceptions and studies of bias to contend with the complexity of social interactions among actors involved directly and indirectly in peer review.

Bibliometrics and beyond: some thoughts on web-based citation analysis

The idea of a unified citation index to the literature of science was first outlined by Eugene Garfield [1] in 1955 in the journal Science. Science Citation Index has since established itself as the gold standard for scientific information retrieval. It has also become the database of choice for citation analysts and evaluative bibliometricians worldwide. As scientific publication moves to the web, and novel approaches to scholarly communication and peer review establish themselves, new methods of citation and link analysis will emerge to capture often liminal expressions of peer esteem, influence and approbation. The web thus affords bibliometricians rich opportunities to apply and adapt their techniques to new contexts and content: the age of ‘bibliometric spectroscopy’ [2] is dawning.

A cast of thousands: coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy

We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th-century scholarship by analyzing and classifying more than 4,500 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that the intensity of acknowledgment varies by discipline, reflecting differences in prevailing sociocognitive structures and work practices. We demonstrate that the acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing, one that provides a revealing insight into the nature and extent of subauthorship collaboration. Complementary data on rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of collaboration and the increasing division of labor in contemporary research and scholarship.

Invoked on the Web

Where, how, and why are scholars invoked on the World Wide Web? An inductively derived typology was used to capture genres of invocation. Comparative data were gathered using five commercial search engines. It is argued that the Web fosters new modalities of scholarly communication. Different categories of invocation are identified and analyzed in terms of their potential to inform sociometric and bibliometric analyses of academic interaction.

Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology

A recurrent criticism of commercial citation indexes is their failure to cover citations found in monographic literature. There exists the possibility that citation‐based surveys of scholarly communication and influence which ignore references in monographs may produce partial results. The study examined the scholarly literature of sociology. Tens of thousands of references from monographs and leading academic journals were analysed. The relative rankings of authors who were highly cited in the monographic literature did not change in the journal literature of the same period. There is, however, only a small overlap between the most highly cited authors based on the journal sample and those based on the monograph sample. The lack of correlation suggests that there may be two distinct populations of highly cited authors.

Visible, less visible, and invisible work: patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry

We chronicle the use of acknowledgments in 20th century chemistry by analyzing and classifying over 2,000 specimens covering a 100-year period. Our results show that acknowledgment has gradually established itself as a constitutive element of academic writing--one that provides a revealing insight into the structural nature of subauthorship collaboration in science. Complementary data on rates of coauthorship are also presented to highlight the growing importance of teamwork and the increasing division of labor in contemporary chemistry. The results of this study are compared with the findings of a parallel study of collaboration in both the social sciences and the humanities.

Citation-based auditing of academic performance

The use of citation data in evaluating the research performance of academic programs and individual faculty members is explored in the context of a 10-year analysis of a single academic unit. The study controls for possible accounting bias by comparing results obtained using three differing approaches to allocating citation credit: straight, whole, and adjusted counts. Citation scores are correlated with salary, time-in-field, and gender. The results of the study raise serious questions about the validity of research rankings derived from perception studies.

A bibliometric chronicling of library and information science's first hundred years

This paper presents a condensed history of Library and Information Science (LIS) over the course of more than a century using a variety of bibliometric measures. It examines in detail the variable rate of knowledge production in the field, shifts in subject coverage, the dominance of particular publication genres at different times, prevailing modes of production, interactions with other disciplines, and, more generally, observes how the field has evolved. It shows that, despite a striking growth in the number of journals, papers, and contributing authors, a decrease was observed in the fields market-share of all social science and humanities research. Collaborative authorship is now the norm, a pattern seen across the social sciences. The idea of boundary crossing was also examined: in 2010, nearly 60% of authors who published in LIS also published in another discipline. This high degree of permeability in LIS was also demonstrated through reference and citation practices: LIS scholars now cite and receive citations from other fields more than from LIS itself. Two major structural shifts are revealed in the data: in 1960, LIS changed from a professional field focused on librarianship to an academic field focused on information and use; and in 1990, LIS began to receive a growing number of citations from outside the field, notably from Computer Science and Management, and saw a dramatic increase in the number of authors contributing to the literature of the field.