Actual Researcher Contribution (ARC) Versus the Perceived Contribution to the Scientific Body of Knowledge

  • Mohanad HalawehEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1177)


The aim of this paper is to propose a new quantitative metric that can be used to measure the total actual researcher contribution (ARC) to a body of knowledge. The proposed ARC metric is a fair measure that is needed to address the abuse of research collaboration and issues arising from honorary authorship, which both lead to the inflation of the total number of published articles by a researcher. This inflation can provide misleading information about a researcher’s expertise and competence based on their perceived contribution. Research ranking agencies, database indexes, universities, and other decision makers can rely on the ARC metric to rank and evaluate university and researcher contributions to a body of knowledge and thus make more informed decisions and allocate research resources more efficiently.


Actual researcher contribution Publishing Contribution Metrics Research collaboration Honorary author 


  1. Al-Herz, W., Haider, H., Al-Bahhar, M., Sadeq, A.: Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: how common is it and why does it exist? J. Med. Ethics 40(5), 346–348 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, M., Brânzei, S.: The authorship dilemma: alphabetical or contribution? In: Lomuscio, A., Scerri, P., Bazzan, A., Huhns, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014), Paris, France, 5–9 May 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. American Mathematical Society: The Culture of Research and Scholarship in Mathematics: Joint Research and Its Publication (2004). Accessed 2 Sept 2017
  4. American Psychological Association: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edn. American Psychological Association, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Bergen, C.V., Bressler, M.: Academe’s unspoken ethical dilemma: author inflation in higher education. Res. High. Educ. J. 31, 1–17 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. Borry, P., Schotsmans, P., Dierickx, K.: Author, contributor or just a singer? A quantitative analysis of authorship trends in the field of bioethics. Bioethics 20(4), 213–220 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, S., Ikeda, T., Lefort, M., Malumbres-Olarte, J., Schmidt, J.: Research integrity and peer review, percentage-based author contribution index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles. Res. Integrity Peer Rev. 2, 18 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. Bavdekar, S.B.: Authorship issues. Lung India 29(1), 76–80 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. Dance, A.: Who’s on first? Nature 489, 591–593 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. European Journal Of Endodontic. Author Contribution Form (2018). Accessed 6 Jan 2020
  11. Efthyvoulou, G.: Alphabet economics: the link between names and reputation. J. Soc.-Econ. 37(3), 1266–1285 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Einav, L., Yariv, L.: What’s in a surname? The effects of surname initials on academic success. J. Econ. Perspect. 20(1), 175–187 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Feeser, V.R., Simon, J.R.: The ethical assignment of authorship in scientific publications: issues and guidelines. Acad. Emer. Med. 15, 963–969 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. Fong, E.A., Wilhite, A.W.: Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS One 12(12), e0187394 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. Jinha, A.: Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learn. Publish. 23(3), 258–263 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (2018). Accessed 2 Sept 2017
  17. Kaushik, R.: The “Authorship Index” - a simple way to measure an author’s contribution to literature. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 1(1), 1–3 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. Lake, D.A.: Who’s on first? Listing authors by relative contribution trumps the alphabet. Polit. Sci. Polit. 43(47), 43–47 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., Jeroncic, A.: A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 6(9), e23477 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. Mesnard, L.D.: Attributing credit to coauthors in academic publishing: The 1/n rule, parallelization, and team bonuses. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260(2), 778–788 (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitcheson, H., Collings, S., Siebers, R.W.: Authorship issues at a New Zealand academic institution. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2(3), 166–171 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. Papatheodorou, S.I., Trikalinos, T.A., Ioannidis, J.P.A.: Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61(6), 546–551 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. Seeman, J.I., House, M.C.: Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability Res. 17(4), 176–197 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. The Council of Science Editors: 2.2 Authorship and Authorship Responsibilities (2016). Accessed 2 Sept 2017
  25. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M.E., Rand, T.A., Resh, V.H., Krauss, J.: Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol. 5(1), e18 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Al Falah UniversityDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations