Background/Purpose Recent research has shown increasing levels of collaboration and associated problems with multiple authorship. Hyperauthorship (papers with 6 or more coauthors) complicates the assignment of credit and responsibility for research publications. Previous studies have reported low (0 to 28 %) rates of hyperauthorship in biomechanics and similar subdisciplines of kinesiology (Knudson, 2011). The purpose of this study was to document the authorship and sampling practice for research reports (N = 276) published in the RQES.
Method Full papers from the 2007 through 2011 volumes were reviewed using the methodology reported by Knudson (2011, Percept Mot Skills 112, 838). Editorials, reviews, and technical notes were excluded from the analysis. Data collected included the number of authors, sample size, single authorship rate (SAR), and hyperauthorship rate (HAR). Descriptive statistics and 95% CI were calculated for all papers and compared to means of each subdisciplinary section of the journal.
Analysis/Results Thirteen statistically significant differences were observed between subdisciplinary values and mean values for the journal. Epidemiology and physiology papers had significantly higher numbers of authors and HAR. Biomechanics has a significantly lower HAR at 0%. Overall SAR was 9%, with biomechanics and physiology having significantly lower and Sociology/Cultural/History significantly higher SAR. Sample sizes varied widely, with biomechanics, motor behavior, and physiology papers significantly lower and epidemiology with significantly higher sample sizes than the journal average.
Conclusions The multidisciplinary nature of RQES results in a variety of authorship and sampling practice but low rates of hyperauthorship in published papers.
See more of: Research Consortium