I am having some disagreement with my VP Academic. She claims that being one of three or four authors (not necessarily the first) in a published paper has the same value of being the only author.

Does anyone know of academic evaluation criteria for publications published or used by reputable institutions? Or, can anyone suggest other effective ways to prove her wrong?

Post comments edit:

1) I publish in the field of statistical methods with data analysis included. My papers are being compared with papers in social sciences.

2) For value I mean time and effort put in writing the papers and getting them published.

3) I would like to find out if there exist some guidelines or criteria for evaluating publications, maybe considering the discipline.

  • 1
    What is your academic discipline or area?
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 9, 2016 at 1:19
  • Statistical methodology and analysis Jul 9, 2016 at 1:39
  • 2
    Value to whom? Different fields view multiple authorship differently. In fields where single-author papers are the norm, having five coauthors dilutes your perceived contribution; in fields where 10-author papers are the norm, it does not. (See also: author ordering.)
    – JeffE
    Jul 9, 2016 at 4:03
  • Thank you for your comment. I edited the question to make it clearer. Do you know how to substantiate what you say (even if it may be obvious to most of us)? Jul 9, 2016 at 4:40
  • 2
    For value I mean time and effort put in writing the papers and getting them published. --- That sounds like cost, not value. I assumed "value" meant something like the work's contribution to your reputation among your peers, reputation within your department, reputation among your supervisors, collaboration potential, hiring potential, promotion potential, funding potential, attractiveness to strong PhD students, commercialization opportunities, and the like.
    – JeffE
    Jul 9, 2016 at 16:14


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .