Authorship metrics are a key component of academic advancement. Given recent increases in the publication of collaborative, multiauthored articles, we examine patterns in the perceived gender of authors of peer-reviewed journal articles with five or more coauthors in 11 academic archaeology journals. Our results suggest consistent patterns in lead and last authors and in coauthors. Men are more likely to serve as both lead and last authors and to include far more men than women as coauthors on their publications. We consider the ways gender homophily, friendship networks, and other forms of often unintentional exclusion may have a negative impact on the careers of women and members of other marginalized communities in archaeology and propose recommendations to address these issues within the field. In addition to greater individual reflexivity around coauthorship decisions, we encourage the development of clear guidelines on author ascription by archaeological organizations and publishing outlets and advocate that institutions adopt both total publication and fractional publication counts as measures of individual productivity.

This article traces the development of the state politics subfield within political science. Using three sources of evidence – the publication of state politics articles in the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics; the corpus of articles in State Politics & Policy Quarterly (SPPQ); and the programs of the State Politics and Policy Conference (SPPC) – we examine how the field has developed over the past six decades. We argue that the founding of SPPQ and SPPC helped formalize the subfield. But, as these subfield outlets entered the scene, the proportion of state politics research in leading generalist outlets began to decline even as the number of articles remains relatively constant. Additionally, the substantive focus of the subfield has endured, anchored in topics such as elections, legislatures, and public opinion, even as areas like judicial politics and gender have gained prominence and studies of political parties have declined. Finally, we document the rise of coauthorship in state politics research, reflecting the collaborative nature of the subfield.

As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered collaboration and private-institution advantages. These trends suggest shifting tenure expectations, complicate traditional metrics of impact, and underscore the need to initiate data-driven conversations about scholarly impact in an increasingly multidisciplinary field.

Engaging diverse partners in each phase of the research process is the gold standard of community-engaged research and adds value to the impact of implementation science. However, partner engagement in dissemination, particularly meaningful involvement in developing peer-reviewed manuscripts, is lacking. The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control are using the Translational Science Benefits Model to demonstrate the impact of our work beyond traditional metrics, including building capacity and promoting community engagement. This paper presents a case example of one center that has developed a policy for including community partners as coauthors. Standard practices are used to foster clear communications and bidirectional collaboration. Of published papers focused on center infrastructure and implementation research pilots, 92% have community partner coauthors. This includes 21 individuals in roles ranging from physician assistant to medical director to quality manager. Through this intentional experience of co-creation, community partners have strengthened implementation science expertise. Community coauthors have also ensured that data interpretation and dissemination reflect real-world practice environments and offer sustainable strategies for rapid translation to practice improvements. Funders, academic journals, and researchers all have important roles to play in supporting community coauthors as critical thought partners who can help to narrow the gap between research and practice.