Identification of hyperauthorship in scientific publications: an approach based on outlier detection methods
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2026
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Elsevier
Citation
Rodrigo Sánchez-Jiménez, J․Tinguaro Rodríguez, Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote, Félix de Moya-Anegón, Identification of hyperauthorship in scientific publications: An approach based on outlier detection methods, Journal of Informetrics, Volume 20, Issue 2, 2026, 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2026.101803
Abstract
The phenomenon of hyperauthorship—characterized by excessive numbers of co-authors in scientific publications—has emerged as a significant concern in contemporary bibliometric analysis. While the growth of collaborative research is well-documented, systematic methods to identify what constitutes "excessive" authorship remain underdeveloped. This study presents a comprehensive approach to hyperauthorship identification based on outlier detection methods, analyzing over 52 million publications from Scopus (2003–2024) across 310 categories. A preliminary analysis of this data reveals substantial temporal and disciplinary variations in authorship patterns, with single authorship declining from one-third of publications in 2003 to significantly lower levels by 2024, while multi-authored works (>10 authors) increased dramatically. Then, 14 different outlier detection methods were implemented, including classical robust measures, skewness-corrected approaches, sequential methods, clustering techniques, and a parametric model based on the discrete power-law distribution (POW). This last method demonstrated superior performance, producing suitable thresholds in 100% of cases without indications of potential over- or under-identification of outliers. The systematic application of POW reveals hyperauthorship thresholds ranging from 3 authors in early 2000s Social Sciences to over 40 in recent Medicine and Physics publications, with an overall increase in hyperauthorship rates from 0.81% to 1.01% globally between 2003–2024. Medicine showed the most dramatic evolution, nearly doubling its hyperauthorship rate to 1.60% by 2024, while areas like Energy maintained consistently low rates (0.53%). These findings provide evidence-based reference points for editorial policies and research evaluation, demonstrating that hyperauthorship assessment requires discipline-specific and temporally-adjusted approaches rather than universal thresholds.













