Biocurious is a weblog about biology through the eyes of physicists. More...
Academics
Andre's Research
Biocuriosities
Books
Graduate School
History of Science
Hot off the Press
Igor's Research
Interdisciplinarity
Molecule of the Month
Open Access
Philip's Research
Philosophy of Science
Physics
Physicsworld.com
Backreaction
Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
The Daily Transcript
Easternblot
Everyday Scientist
The Evilutionary Biologist
Evolgen
Freelancing Science
The Futile Cycle
Good Math, Bad Math
iMechanica
in singulo
Incoherently Scattered Ponderings
Juniorprof
Life of a Lab Rat
The Loom
Malletrivia
Metadatta
Mixed States
Not Even Wrong
Notes from the biomass
Notional Slurry
OpenScience Project
Pharyngula
PLoS Blog
Ponderings of a fool
Recombinants
The Sandwalk
SciAm Observations
ScienceBlogs
Shtetl-Optimized
Three-toed Sloth
Uncertain Principles
What's New by Bob Park



This month’s PLoS Biology has a correspondence from a number of scientists* on the problem of assessing the contributions of each author on a multi-author paper (open access, as per PLoS usual).
They go on to list a number of sensible options for determining the author sequence based on credit. The technique I assume most common is that of “SDC”, or “sequence-determines-credit”. The first author played the most important role, while the following authors’ contributions are monotonically decreasing. In the “EC” scheme (“equal-contribution”), the authors should be listed alphabetically. Another option, “FLAE”, for “first-last-author-emphasis”, can be used when the second most “important” author is the final name on the list. A fourth and final suggestion is that “PCI”, or “percent-contribution-indicated”, where each author is assigned a percentage of the total credit for the paper.
However, I was very surprised to learn that detailed quantitative calculations based on schemes similar to these are routinely used by evaluation committees, with the impact factor of the journal thrown in as a scaling factor. This seems overly silly to me, as we already know that the impact factor is a pretty poor judge of impact, and when listing things like the percent you’ve contributed to a paper, well, who knows what you’ve actually done.
While all the above author-list-schemes are reasonable enough, I think it makes more sense to simply list what exactly each author contributed to the paper, and the relative worth can be left unsaid. This is the path being taken by a number of journals, including most recently Science, and as Alex pointed out at the time, perhaps this will lead to papers without sprawling author lists who are included for very questionable reasons.
* Thankfully the authors let us know who did all the legwork, as the authors followed the SDC, or “sequence-determins-credit”, approach.
Blood Clot Mechanics at the Molecular Level Reciprocal space-cadets in Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.