  Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions
with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and
promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on
publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of
authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy
authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and
also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking
intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns
of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of
authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group
of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear
in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1
depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the
relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5),
nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or
collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking
the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of
the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or
institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and
institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for
co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for
more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.
