Between 2016 and 2020, researchers in China were up to nine times more likely to list multiple corresponding authors on academic papers than their international counterparts. A recent analysis of 1.75 million articles suggests this trend, which peaked at 30% of Chinese-authored papers in 2020, stems from specific national research-evaluation systems.
The Rise of Multiple Corresponding Authors in Chinese Research
In the global academic community, the role of the corresponding author is typically singular: a designated point of contact responsible for managing communication with journal editors, handling post-publication correspondence, and often managing administrative burdens like article processing fees. However, data indexed by Clarivate’s Web of Science reveals a sharp departure from this norm within China, as reported by Nature.
The study, published in the journal Scientometrics, tracked authorship trends over a five-year period. While the global average for papers with multiple corresponding authors remained relatively stable—rising from 7.1% in 2016 to 8.8% in 2020—China’s figures saw a significant climb. By 2020, roughly 30% of papers from Chinese researchers featured more than one corresponding author, a near-tripling of the country’s own 2016 rate of 21.6%.
Disparities Across Disciplines and Regions
The practice is not uniform across all fields of study. The research indicates that medicine and pharmacology are particularly prone to this trend, with Chinese researchers approximately nine times more likely to list multiple corresponding authors than the global baseline. In the humanities and social sciences, the likelihood is lower but still significant, at roughly five times the global average.
Regional clusters also emerge in the data. Outside of China, researchers in Singapore and South Korea reported high proportions of multiple corresponding authors, both hovering just under 20% for the 2016–2020 period. When these three nations are removed from the global dataset, the average share of papers with multiple corresponding authors drops to approximately 7.5%.
Institutional Incentives and Evaluation Systems
While large-scale collaborative projects can genuinely involve shared leadership, the sheer scale of the shift in China points toward systemic drivers rather than just the nature of the research itself. Wencan Tian, a social scientist at Beijing Normal University in Zhuhai and a co-author of the study, notes that the evaluation systems in place during the study period heavily prioritized specific authorship positions.
This creates a vulnerability where the corresponding-author designation becomes a tool for career advancement rather than a functional role. Because promotions and financial incentives were tied to these specific titles, the incentive to inflate authorship counts became a rational response to institutional metrics.
Defining the Language of Academic Credibility
The ambiguity surrounding authorship roles reflects broader linguistic challenges in how we define choices and authority. In English, the term “what” serves as an interrogative for open-ended sets, as detailed by Wiktionary. When researchers ask, “What criteria determine authorship?” they are often grappling with the lack of a closed group of standards. In contrast, “which” is preferred for choices from a closed group or set, such as, “Which one of these do you want?”
As Dictionary.com notes, the etymology of the word “what” traces back to the Old English hwæt, a root shared with German was and Latin quod. This linguistic history underscores the persistent, fundamental nature of the question: what is the purpose of a designation? In the context of global science, the answer to that question is currently shifting, as institutions move to reconcile the high-stakes pressure of publishing with the integrity of the research record.
The next 30 days are unlikely to see a sudden reversal of these trends, but the increasing transparency of authorship data provides a new baseline for global research assessment. As funding agencies and universities move away from rigid, position-based rewards, the trend of inflating corresponding authorship counts may eventually stabilize, though the current data suggests the practice remains deeply embedded in the current academic incentive structure.
