...
However, the actual author roles are not yet available in the analysis tools based on citation databases. Instead, these tools allow the search results to be limited by the order of the authors (first or last author) or the corresponding authors. In this way, the publications where the author has been the leading or responsible author can be identified. However, when using this method, it is important to be aware of what field of science the publications belong to and what the listing order of the authors in that field of science indicates. In some fields of science, authors are listed in alphabetical order, regardless of the importance of their role.
...
The most common number of authors in a scientific article is 2–4 authors, according to a 2009–2018 survey based on Web of Science publication records. There were ten or fewer authors in almost 95% of the articles. However, a scientific article can have a significant number of authors – especially in fields where research is carried out in large research groups or where extensive cooperation is otherwise required, e.g. in funding research infrastructures or acquiring data. In recent years, there has been an increase in hyper authorship, i.e. articles with more than 100 authors. In particular, the proportion of articles by with more than 1,000 authors has increased, although it still remains small overall. (Adams et al., 2019).
As the high number of authors may influence the number of citations the publication receives (especially when the authors come from different countries), there is a risk that hyper authorship articles may distort the results of analyses. This should be taken into account when analysing results, at the very least. The distorting effects can be mitigated by fractionalising, which reduces the significance of publications in the overall context, and by using Top x% indicators, which are less sensitive to the influence of publications that have received very high numbers of citations. Indicators to normalise the number of background countries are also being developed for some analysis tools (InCites Collab-CNCI). If distorting effects are observed, one solution is to exclude articles by more than 100 authors from organisational and country-level analyses (Adams et al., 2019). However, this is not explicitly recommended, as these publications, too, belong to the subject under evaluation. The typical number of authors varies by the field of science, and in some fields hyper authorship articles are very common and are part of a normal publishing practice. If it is decided to exclude publications on the basis of the number of authors, this can be done by using the filters in the analysis tools (InCites and SciVal).
...
Citation databases also have their own researcher identifiers. Some of these are automatically created based on the publication information (Scopus Author Identifiers and Dimensions profiles) and some are created by the researchers themselves (Web of Science Researcher ID). Information is imported into the profiles using, for example, ORCID iD, so by using their ORCID iD in the author information of their publication and keeping their ORDIC profile up to date, researchers can also promote the accuracy of their publication information in their own profiles in the databases. The Google Scholar search engine has its own researcher profiles.
If the focus is on a researcher’s publication publications affiliated in a specific research organisation, identifying the organisation will also make it easier to identify the individual’s publications. Major citation databases support the unambiguous identification of research organisations. The profiles in the Web of Science Organization-Enhanced and Scopus Institution Profiles standardise the names of organisations and, for example, gather the publications of merged organisations under a single name. Dimensions uses the Research Organization Registry (ROR) identifiers to standardise the names of organisations.
Both the ORCID identifiers and the organisation profiles in databases require active maintenance from the owner. For both of these, it is common that some publications are missing or have been incorrectly attached. Therefore, the list of publications based on an identifier cannot be relied upon alone and should be produced in cooperation with the subject of the evaluation.
...
Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., Potter, R. & and Szomszor, M. (2019) . Global Research Report – Multi-authorship and research analytics. Institute for Scientific Information, Clarivate, London and Philadelphia.
Council of Science Editors (2006) . CSE Recommendations for Group-Author Articles in Scientific Journals and Bibliometric Databases. Available: https://wwwcse.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/cse-policies/approved-by-the-cse-board-of-directorsmemberclicks.net/cse-recommendations-for-group-author-articles-in-scientific-journals-and-bibliometric-databases/
CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. (no date) Available: https://credit.niso.org/
ORCID. (no date) Available: https://orcid.org/
Research Organization Registry (ROR). (no date) Available: https://ror.org/
The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK (2019) . Agreeing on authorship. Recommendation for research publications. Tutkimuseettisen neuvottelukunnan julkaisuja, 6, 65 p. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_suositus_tekijyys.pdf
...