Just add a caveat to the limitations section. This may not be sufficient, though, as not everyone will click over to that section
Compute the percentage of authors from different regions by paper, then average those percentages. So if a paper has two authors, one from North America and one from Africa, that paper would receive scores of .5 for North America and .5 for Africa. These scores would then be the basis for averaging across journals and so on. The results would be less interpretable than just reporting first-authorship, but they would represent the state of affairs in economics more accurately. It would require scrutinizing and revising a lot of documentation though
Add toggles that allow the user to determine which display they want (first author, averages, etc). This is probably not possible without a major overhaul of the technical infrastructure of the dashboard, and so is not feasible except as a longer-term aspiration in future releases
What do you think? I think it's fine to leave the dashboard as-is for now, except with a note displayed somewhere in the limitations (and maybe on the landing page too). However, this problem merits a response sometime after you are back from traveling (next month is ok).
According to Steve Glazerman at Innovations for Poverty Action, much of economics alphabetizes multi-author papers. The norm is not constant across economics, but a quick Google confirms the basic point; see for example, the following: https://www.aeaweb.org/research/coauthorship-randomization-certification-name-order
I see a couple possible solutions:
What do you think? I think it's fine to leave the dashboard as-is for now, except with a note displayed somewhere in the limitations (and maybe on the landing page too). However, this problem merits a response sometime after you are back from traveling (next month is ok).