Paper detail

Bibliometrics for collaboration works

An important issue in bibliometrics is the weighing of co-authorship in the production of scientific collaborations, which are becoming the standard modality of research activity in many disciplines. The problem is especially relevant in the field of high-energy physics, where collaborations reach 3000 authors, but it can no longer be ignored also in other domains, like medicine or biology. We present theoretical and numerical arguments in favour of weighing the individual contributions as $1/N_{\rm aut}^α$ where $N_{\rm aut}$ is the number of co-authors. When counting citations we suggest the exponent $α\approx 1$, that corresponds to fractional counting. When counting the number of papers we suggest $α\approx 1/3 - 1/2$, with the former (latter) value more appropriate for larger (smaller) collaborations. We expect and verify that the $h$ index scales as the square root of the average number of co-authors, and define a fractionalized $h$ index that does not scale with collaboration size.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.