Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the effects of inflationary and equalizing bias on publication output rankings. Any identifiable amount of bias in authorship accreditation was detrimental to accuracy when ranking a select group of leading Canadian aquaculture researchers. Bias arose when publication scores were calculated without taking into account information about multiple authorship and differential coauthor contributions. The ensuing biased equal credit scores, whether fractional or inflated, produced rankings that were fundamentally different from the ranking of harmonic estimates of actual credit calculated by using all relevant byline information in the source data. In conclusion, the results indicate that both fractional and inflated rankings are misleading, and suggest that accurate accreditation of coauthors is the key to reliable publication performance rankings.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
