Almost Always Unequal: Co-Authors’ Contributions to Scientific Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific work has become increasingly organized as teamwork and most research publications are now joint work of several co-authors. While of utmost importance for fair and valid research evaluation, the quantitative patterns of relative work contribution by team members to co-authored publications have remained opaque. Here we present an empirical study of contribution patterns. We analyze a large data set of author-provided percent contribution claims for co-authored scientific publications submitted as part of applications to scholarship programs. We find that the distribution of work input in co-authored publications is overwhelmingly unequal. This is in direct contrast to extant assumptions in research evaluation practice and professional science studies which presuppose equal contributions and do not adjust or weight publication and citation counts differentially by contribution. Such flawed methodology should be discontinued, as it unfairly disadvantages major contributors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.333 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".