If the NFL Can Do It, So Can Scientists

In America's National Football League, a player gets full credit only for a so-called sack when he alone brings down the quarterback. In the world of US patents, a patent holder rakes in all the royalties if he or she is the sole name on the invention. If there's more than one name, the money is equally shared. It's called Laplace's Principle of Insufficient Reason: Without grounds for specifying unequal portions, the rational approach is to apportion equally. And it is, I'm convinced, the method by which scientists should calculate their citation numbers. Too often, researchers imply they have X citations, when the proper implication is that they have made contributions to articles that have been cited X times. Consequently, those who judge applicants for research positions, or evaluate researchers for promotions and raises, would do well to apportion X as a step to sorting out whether each researcher's citation productivity is due in large, or small part, to riding on the coattails of others. Using the example of two researchers, A and B, here is how fractionalizing would work. A is one of six coauthors of a publication cited 108 times, as well as one of four coauthors of a publication cited 38 times. A should not be credited with 108 + 38 = 146 citations, but rather with 108/6 + 38/4 = 27.5, A's fractional share. B is the sole author of a publication cited 43 times, and one of two authors of a publication cited 34 times. B should not be credited with 43 + 34 = 77 citations, but rather with 43/1 + 34/2 = 60, B's fractional share. Without fractionalizing, A appears nearly twice as citation-productive as B, 146 to 77. With fractionalizing, B appears more than twice as citation-productive as A, 60 to 27.5. Fractionalizing is especially useful for clarifying contributions on coauthored articles that have been cited to high heaven. Here's another example. Consider a particular article on the sequence of the human genome,1 listing 274 coauthors, which at this writing has been cited 1,776 times. It is a large order to hold that each coauthor has a right to think or claim, "I have 1,776 citations." But fractionalized, objections disappear, each coauthor having 1,776 divided by 274, or 6.5 fractionalized citations. The same method applies to fractionalizing credit for publications. I once read a summary in a job applicant's cover letter, which mentioned that this person "had" more than 125 journal articles. It turned out, however, that the person had been, on average, one of almost four authors per publication. Why divide the pie equally among coauthors? Because it's fair. The NFL apparently thinks so. According to its 2002 regular season statistics, the Miami Dolphin's Jason Taylor led the league with quarterback sacks, 18.5 to be exact. If on occasion Mr. Taylor by himself made a sack, he was given full credit. If he and a team member were in on taking down the quarterback, each was credited with half a sack. George Bernard Shaw also followed this principle. It happened that a certain two actors were indispensable to a play of his. Both realizing this, each pressed for the lion's share of the salary pie. Shaw wrote to one, "It must be recognized that he is indispensable to it, just as you are indispensable to it; and indispensables must share."2 Shaw obviously meant that the pie should be split in half. Laplace's Principle has a place in science. The computerized ISI Web of Science, in supplying the number of articles on which a researcher is listed, as well as the number of citations the articles have garnered, provides an easy way of distributing credit for articles and citations. An administrator who has resumes of candidates for a teaching or research position can take the lists of articles, or representative samples thereof, look up the citation counts, note the number of authors for each, assign fractions, and add them up for each candidate, fractionalizing both articles and citations. Such is a starting point, two factors in a larger set of factors for judging researchers. I admit that this system, on the surface, may not seem entirely fair. It may be that certain irreplaceable coauthors justly deserve the stratosphere of credit; for example, submitting J. Craig Venter and several more authors of the above genome article to fractionalization might haul them down unfairly far. Yet, so long as administrators weight them to the sky on other evaluating factors, such as rare leadership ability, crucial creativity, or funding capabilities, just treatment will prevail within the overall frame of evaluation. H. Charles Romesburg, a professor at Utah State University, is the author of The Life of the Creative Spirit, Xlibris, 2001. References 1. J.C. Venter et al., "The sequence of the human genome," Science, 291:1304-51, 2001. 2. G.B. Shaw, Bernard Shaw and Mrs. Patrick Campbell: Their Correspondence, A. Dent (ed.), London: Victor Gollancz, 1952, p. 24. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

If the NFL Can Do It, So Can Scientists

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of