Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T20:34:44.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Who's on First? Listing Authors by Relative Contribution Trumps the Alphabet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2010

David A. Lake
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego

Extract

Political science as a discipline lacks any convention on the order in which authors should be listed in co-authored publications. As a result, the order of authors' surnames currently provides no information to other scholars, hiring and promotion committees, and other reviewers about the relative contributions of each collaborator. This lack of information impedes the allocation of proper credit for scholarly contributions. Moreover, in collaborations between junior and senior colleagues, or other asymmetric status hierarchies, the absence of both information and any convention tends to favor more established scholars; this makes it more difficult for graduate students, untenured professors, and other vulnerable co-authors to negotiate for and receive appropriate credit. Listing authors by relative contribution is both more informative and fair. In publications where one author provides the necessary research funding, or a faculty member is not only a co-author but also a dissertation or other academic advisor, it is also appropriate to designate that collaborator as “last” or “senior author.” In all cases, articles should carry a short statement indicating the division of labor between the co-authors, even or especially if the contributions are equal.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Diamond, A.M. Jr. 1985. “The Money Value of Citations to Single-Authored and Multiple-Authored Articles.” Scientometrics 8: 315–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efthyvoulou, Georgios. 2008. “Alphabet Economics: The Link Between Names and Reputation.” Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (3): 1266–85.Google Scholar
Einav, Liran, and Yariv, Leeat. 2006. “What's in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (1): 175–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engers, M., Gans, J.S., Grant, S., and King, S.P.. 1999. “First-Author Conditions.” Journal of Political Economy 107: 859–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwok, L.S. 2005. “The White Bull Effect: Abusive Coauthorship and Publication Parasitism.” Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 554–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W.J., Newman, R.J., and Turnbull, G.K.. 2001. “Reputational Capital and Academic Pay.” Economic Inquiry 39: 663–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nudelman, A.E., and Landers, C.E.. 1972. “The Failure of 100 Divided by 3 to Equal 33-1/3.” The American Sociologist 7.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee. 2009. “Are Two (or Three or Four … or Nine) Heads Better than One? Collaboration, Multidisciplinarity, and Publishability.” PS: Political Science and Politics 42 (3): 507–12.Google Scholar
Tregenza, Tom. 1997. “Darwin a Better Name than Wallace?Nature 385: 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Praag, C.M., and Van Praag, B.M.S.. 2003. “First-Author Determinants and the Benefits of Being Professor A (and not Z): An Empirical Analysis.” Economica 75: 782–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar