Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices

Current research performance assessment criteria contribute to some extent to author inflation per publication. Among various indicators for evaluating the quality of research with multiple authors, harmonic counting is relatively superior in terms of calculation, scientific ethics, and application. However, two important factors in harmonic counting are not yet clearly understood. These factors are the perceptions of scientists regarding the (1) corresponding author and (2) equally credited authors (ECAs). We carry out a survey investigation on different perceptions of author position versus contribution among medical researchers with different subfields and professional ranks in China, in order to provide several pieces of evidence on the aforementioned factors. We are surprised to find that researchers with different professional ranks tend to largely acknowledge their own contribution in collaborative research. Next, we conduct an empirical study to measure individual's citation impact using inflated counts versus harmonic counts. The results indicate that harmonic h-index cannot reflect the high peak of harmonic citations. Therefore, we use (1) harmonic R-index to differentiate authors based on the harmonic citations of each paper belonging to their respective h-cores; and (2) Normalization harmonic (h, R) index as a meaningful indicator in ranking scientists. Using a sample of 40 Ph.D. mentors in the field of cardiac and cardiovascular diseases, harmonic counts can distinguish between scientists who are often listed as major contributors and those regularly listed as co-authors. This method may also discourage unethical publication practices such as ghost authorship and gift authorship.