Motif-based success scores in coauthorship networks are highly sensitive to author name disambiguation.

Following the work of Krumov et al. [Eur. Phys. J. B 84, 535 (2011)] we revisit the question whether the usage of large citation datasets allows for the quantitative assessment of social (by means of coauthorship of publications) influence on the progression of science. Applying a more comprehensive and well-curated dataset containing the publications in the journals of the American Physical Society during the whole 20th century we find that the measure chosen in the original study, a score based on small induced subgraphs, has to be used with caution, since the obtained results are highly sensitive to the exact implementation of the author disambiguation task.