Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023

Overview

• Between 2019 and 2023, 16 universities increased their research output by over 15 times the global average.
• Significant changes in authorship dynamics were observed, including decreased first authorship, rise in hyperprolific authors, increased multi-affiliations, and increased authors per publication.
• Bibliometric analysis detected patterns suggesting a reliance on unconventional authorship practices like gift, honorary, and sold authorship to inflate publication metrics.
• The study highlights the need for reforms across universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking bodies, accreditation organizations, publishers, and researchers to maintain academic integrity and ensure reliable global rankings.

Plain English Explanation

The study examined how the publication output and authorship patterns at 16 universities changed dramatically between 2019 and 2023. Instead of a steady, expected increase, these universities saw their research output skyrocket, growing over 15 times faster than the global average.

Digging deeper, the researchers noticed some concerning shifts in how these publications were authored. There was a decline in researchers being listed as the primary or "first" author on papers. There was also a rise in a small number of researchers who were publishing an extremely high volume of papers, known as "hyperprolific authors." Additionally, more researchers were listing multiple institutional affiliations and the average number of authors per publication increased.

By analyzing the citation data and publication trends, the researchers detected signs that these universities may have been relying on questionable authorship practices to boost their publication metrics. This could include things like "gift authorship" where someone is listed as an author without making a significant contribution, "honorary authorship" where a senior researcher is added as an author despite minimal involvement, or even "sold authorship" where authorship is purchased.

The key takeaway is that the dramatic increases in research output at these universities, coupled with the suspicious authorship dynamics, raise serious concerns about the integrity and reliability of global university ranking systems. The study calls for extensive reforms across the academic ecosystem to address these issues and restore trust in the publication process.

Technical Explanation

Using bibliometric methods, this study examined publication patterns at 16 universities that saw their research output increase by over 15 times the global average between 2019 and 2023. The analysis detected significant shifts in authorship dynamics, including:

• Decreased rates of first authorship
• Rise of "hyperprolific authors" publishing an exceptionally high volume of papers
• Increased rates of multi-institutional affiliations among authors
• Higher average number of authors per publication

These authorship trends, combined with other bibliometric signals, led the researchers to suspect a reliance on unconventional authorship practices to inflate publication metrics. Potential issues like "gift authorship", "honorary authorship", and "sold authorship" were detected.

The study underscores the need for comprehensive reforms by universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking bodies, accreditation organizations, scholarly publishers, and researchers themselves. This is necessary to maintain academic integrity and ensure the reliability of global university ranking systems, which are increasingly influential in shaping research priorities and resource allocation.

Critical Analysis

While the paper provides compelling evidence of concerning authorship practices at the universities studied, there are a few important caveats to consider:

• The analysis was limited to 16 universities, so the findings may not generalize to the broader academic landscape. Further research is needed to understand if these trends are isolated or more widespread.

• The bibliometric methods used can detect suspicious patterns, but cannot definitively prove the existence of gift, honorary, or sold authorship. More in-depth investigation would be required to verify the underlying causes.

• The study does not explore potential systemic drivers that may be incentivizing these problematic authorship behaviors, such as increasing pressure to maximize publication metrics for funding, tenure, and ranking purposes. Addressing the root causes will be crucial.

Nevertheless, the study raises critical questions about the integrity of academic publishing and the reliability of university ranking systems. Policymakers, university administrations, and the research community as a whole must work to implement robust safeguards and reforms to restore trust in the scholarly process.

Conclusion

This study uncovered alarming trends in the publication outputs and authorship dynamics at 16 universities, suggesting a potential reliance on questionable practices to artificially inflate research metrics. The findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive reforms across the academic ecosystem to uphold principles of research integrity and ensure the credibility of global university ranking systems.

By addressing issues like gift, honorary, and sold authorship, universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking bodies, accreditation organizations, publishers, and researchers can work to restore trust in the scholarly process and realign incentives with the pursuit of genuine academic excellence. Maintaining the reliability of university rankings is essential, as these metrics increasingly shape institutional priorities, resource allocation, and the overall direction of scientific research.