The elephant in the room: multi-authorship and the assessment of individual researchers

Abstract

When a group of individuals creates something, credit is usually divided among them. Oddly, that does not apply to scientific papers. The most commonly used performance measure for individual researchers is the h-index, which does not correct for multi-authorship. Each author claims full credit for each paper and each ensuing citation. This mismeasure of achievement is fuelling a flagrant increase in multi-authorship. Several alternatives to the h-index have been devised, and one of them, the individual h-index (hI), is logical, intuitive and easily calculated. Correcting for multi-authorship would end gratuitous authorship and allow proper attribution and unbiased comparisons.