The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship.

Philippe Mongeon,Bruno Joyal,Elise Smith,Vincent Larivière,Miguel A Andrade-Navarro

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184601

Philippe Mongeon, Bruno Joyal + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184601

Copy DOI

Abstract

Contemporary biomedical research is performed by increasingly large teams. Consequently, an increasingly large number of individuals are being listed as authors in the bylines, which complicates the proper attribution of credit and responsibility to individual authors. Typically, more importance is given to the first and last authors, while it is assumed that the others (the middle authors) have made smaller contributions. However, this may not properly reflect the actual division of labor because some authors other than the first and last may have made major contributions. In practice, research teams may differentiate the main contributors from the rest by using partial alphabetical authorship (i.e., by listing middle authors alphabetically, while maintaining a contribution-based order for more substantial contributions). In this paper, we use partial alphabetical authorship to divide the authors of all biomedical articles in the Web of Science published over the 1980–2015 period in three groups: primary authors, middle authors, and supervisory authors. We operationalize the concept of middle author as those who are listed in alphabetical order in the middle of an authors’ list. Primary and supervisory authors are those listed before and after the alphabetical sequence, respectively. We show that alphabetical ordering of middle authors is frequent in biomedical research, and that the prevalence of this practice is positively correlated with the number of authors in the bylines. We also find that, for articles with 7 or more authors, the average proportion of primary, middle and supervisory authors is independent of the team size, more than half of the authors being middle authors. This suggests that growth in authors lists are not due to an increase in secondary contributions (or middle authors) but, rather, in equivalent increases of all types of roles and contributions (including many primary authors and many supervisory authors). Nevertheless, we show that the relative contribution of alphabetically ordered middle authors to the overall production of knowledge in the biomedical field has greatly increased over the last 35 years.

Highlights

With the increasing costs, complexity and interdisciplinarity of modern science [1], research collaboration has become the norm [2]
We distinguish here cases where middle authors are listed in alphabetical order from cases where the alphabetical sequence begins with the first author or ends with the last authors, as well as cases where all authors are in alphabetical order
We demonstrated that the listing of middle authors alphabetically is a practice used frequently in biomedical research, especially in articles with a large number of authors

Summary

Introduction

Complexity and interdisciplinarity of modern science [1], research collaboration has become the norm [2]. The diversity of collaboration types [12], team composition [13], and work division within the team [14], greatly complicates the attribution of credit and responsibility to individual team members [15]. This is an important issue since the advancement of researchers’ careers largely depends on the credit they obtain for their work [16,17]. The growing complexity of credit attribution is potentially detrimental for the scientific system as a whole, which works best when excellence is properly identified and rewarded [18]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion