Question

Different opinion about performace apprincal in authore

Answer 1

Background
In the past 50 years there has been a substantial increase in the volume of published research and in the number of authors per scientific publication. There is also significant pressure exerted on researchers to produce publications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to survey corresponding authors in published medical journals to determine their opinion on publication impact in relation to performance review and promotion.
Methods
Cross-sectional survey of corresponding authors of original research articles published in June 2007 among 72 medical journals. Measurement outcomes included the number of publications, number of authors, authorship order and journal impact factor in relation to performance review and promotion.
Results
Of 687 surveys, 478 were analyzed (response rate 69.6%). Corresponding authors self-reported that number of publications (78.7%), journal impact factor (67.8%) and being the first author (75.9%) were most influential for their annual performance review and assessment. Only 17.6% of authors reported that the number of authors on a manuscript was important criteria for performance review and assessment. A higher percentage of Asian authors reported that the number of authors was key to performance review and promotion (41.4% versus 7.8 to 22.2%). compared to authors from other countries.
Conclusions
The number of publications, authorship order and journal impact factor were important factors for performance reviews and promotion at academic and non-academic institutes. The number of authors was not identified as important criteria. These factors may be contributing to the increase in the number of authors per publication.
Background
In the past fifty years there has been a substantial increase in the volume of published research. The number of papers cited by Pub Med each year has also grown linearly, to a current total exceeding 18 million [ 1]. The increase in publications has been accompanied by an increase in the number of authors per scientific publication [ 2-5 ]. In fact the average number of authors in major medical journals has increased from 4.5 in 1980 to 6.9 in 2000, and single authored articles have diminished [5 , 6]. For example, in January 2009 a manuscript was published with almost 3000 authors [7 , 8]. This increase has resulted in carefully defined criteria to be established by journal editors to define authorship requirements, with limitations on the number of authors established by some medical journals [3 , 5].
Researchers have implicated the increased complexity of research (including technological advances) and the increase in multi-center and multidisciplinary research collaborations to the growth in the number of authors per manuscript. However, it can be argued that other factors have a stronger impact on this so-called "author inflation". These factors include professional and social advancement (promotion), tenure, prestige, funding, and honorary authorships. Promotion and tenure committees use different procedures, criterion, and weight to evaluate researchers within faculties and across institutions; both academic and non-academic. Some institutions may reward publications, particularly for publication in "high impact journals" [9 ]. Therefore, there is significant pressure exerted on researchers to produce publications in top journals [ 3]. The journal impact factor is frequently used as a proxy for the importance of a journal in its particular field [10 ].
We surveyed corresponding authors in published medical journals to determine their opinion on aspects of publication (authorship order, number and journal impact factor) in relation to performance review and promotion.