Dear Jimmy Y. Zhong,

Thank you for taking your time to answer my questions. Your response is commendable and the information you provided is very useful. Thank you once more.

Regards,

Modestus.

It's a team work, like in football game.

Dear Dr. Modestus Okwu , it is an interesting issue. I do have two institution experiences. One in my home country Ethiopia and the other in South Korea. To begin with my home country experiences, I my former institution, the first author will be considered as a major contributor and the value also higher than the other co-authors unless and otherwise it is mentioned that all authors have equal contributions.

Concerning with my Korean Experiences, more value will be given to the corresponding author regardless of its order of writing, either at the beginning, middle, or last. In most of the cases, the corresponding authors will paper at the last of the naming list.

From these experiences, the authorship value will deepen up on and governed by institution rules and explanations made on authorship contribution.

In most of the cases first author will be the original author, if not then surely the corresponding author will be the original author.

Important question indeed... And not an easy one. Some thoughts:

(i) How do I spot the original author of any article with multiple authors?

I think Jimmy covers this very well. Also you are right that in some fields/countries/departments the way authors are ordered is simply alphabetical. Very hard to spot who did most of the work then...

But you can reverse this to get a rule of thumb: if the ordering is not alphabetical, then probably the first author did most of the work, especially if (s)he is a junior researcher.

Of course the best way to spot this is to quiz the authors themselves :) (e.g. at a conference), but one does not often have the opportunity to do so...

(ii) How best should authorship be assigned?

I agree with Jimmy: ideally, the first author should be the one who did most of the work. Alas in many fields/countries/departments this is not the case.

I personally find it useful to discuss this in advance when you want to write a paper. Such discussions can also have consequences for (1) who takes the lead and (2) the work distribution in general. For instance, in my department we have the informal rule that the first author does the formatting in terms of layout and referencing. But this is just how we informally decided it.

(iii) What should be the grading policy for articles published by more than one author? & (iv) Who receives the highest point during rating?

Just a question for clarification regarding both points: do you mean how a journal evaluates a manuscript or how e.g. a department evaluates individual researchers?

Very interesting question

The first author is usually the person who has made the most significant i contribution to the work, in terms designing the study, analyzing data from experiments, and writing the manuscript.

I agree with the comments from Jimmy Y. Zhong, Kristof Jacobs, Prof. Dmytro Leshchenko.

Working in a group is something good, fast, minimum of error and difficult. This group has a leader, sometimes he is the main author (first position) and sometimes he is the supervisor in the last position.

Who receives the highest point during rating?

Country A: author 1 = author 2 = .......= author N

Country B: author 1 ≥ author 2 ≥ ....... ≥ author N

Country C: ...................................................................

There are no absolute rules about author precedence and role.

Sometimes the first author is simply the member of the writing team who NEEDS the first authorship for promotion and prestige. :-)

Dear Dr. Modestus Okwu,

Thank you for the interesting question you raised.

It is a very good question targeted at research ethics!

I quite agree with Jimmy Zhong and Kristof Jacobs.

I also love the analysis of Abderrajmane Khechekhouche.

Thank you all for your positive response to the interesting question.

@ B.M. Kassahu, thank you for sharing your experience.

Quite interesting to read from you all.

Regards,

Ken.

Working with the group of author has a lot of advantageous. It give a perfect wirk in addition of tge reduction of the number ifthe erreur. However it can no useful if all authors no give the same effort.

Working with the group of author has a lot of advantageous. It give a perfect wirk in addition of tge reduction of the number ifthe erreur. However it can no useful if all authors no give the same effort.

Thank you very much Dr. Mohannad Husain Al-Sherrawi. Research is truly a team work like in football game where the highest goal scorer or man of the match (main author with idea, who performed most of the experiments) appear first on the list and coach (supervisor, who is the head of the research group) appear last. Other players are arranged based on the order of how much they contributed on the field. Thank you once more.

Regards,

Modestus.

Many trusted journals are asking the corresponding auther to submit a percentage ratio of all coauthers contributons.

Thank you very much Beemnet Mengesha Kassahun, for sharing your experiences. Your comment is valuable and noted with delight.

Regards,

Modestus

Dear Dr. Mahesh Kumar,

Thank you for making me understand that the first author or corresponding author play a key role in research. Your response is greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Modestus

It is a difficult question.

Some sub-sets may help:

Dr. Kristof Jacobs,

Thank you for taking your time to attend to all the questions raised. It is truly hard to spot who did most of the work and since there is no opportunity to quiz the authors, maybe suggestions can be made to journal editors to create space at the last page of the journal where all authors can state specifically the contributions made.

Aspa the question you asked, I mean "assessment or evaluation of individual researchers for promotion by the institution"

Regards,

Modestus

Many journals use the number 1 to indicate the primary and lead authors of a paper with 2,3 and so forth depending on the extend of the contribution of each of the authors

This is an interesting discussion. The individual who actually wrote the paper may have played a major part in doing the work, and therefore, the convention is to put his/her name first in the order of authors. The order of remaining authors is based on their relative contributions.

It is a usual convention to refer to the first author as the senior author as s/he is the primary progenitor of the work being reported. Even when the first author is a PG student, and the second is the Head of the Department, it is now an accepted practice to refer the first author as the “senior author” and to assume that s/he did most or all of the research.

In a scientific paper, only those who contributed substantially to the work should be listed as authors. Note that multi-authorship weakens the whole effort and adversely affects the prospects of real investigators. A simple help in taking observation, analysis, or interpretation do not entail anybody for authorship. Instead, acknowledge their help in a proper way.

It is customary to put one of the authors as the corresponding author. The author who agrees to communicate with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process is the corresponding author. Please note that a corresponding author need not be the first author.

@Dr. Modestus Okwu: Yes, that seems like a worthwhile suggestion. Regarding the quizzing, I realize it is typically difficult to do. I have heard of hiring committees who quiz the applicant on their contribution to publications. But it's rare, that's true.

Also thanks for the clarification. Some thoughts:

(iii) What should be the grading policy for articles published by more than one author? & (iv) Who receives the highest point during rating?

If I understand it correctly, question (iii) is a normative one (how things should be) and question (iv) is the empirical part (how things are).

There is a huge debate about how things should be: should single-authored publications be valued more highly or not? And if multiple authors contributed should the ‘grade’ then e.g. be divided by the number of authors?

Given that science is typically a team effort (as others have rightly mentioned), it makes sense reward everybody. But on the other hand it is clear that single-authored manuscripts take way more time.

So in practice departments and hiring committees in many fields/countries seem to mix the two approaches. They award a lower grade to multi-authored articles.

In my department for instance, the grade for an article is the weighted impact factor multiplied by 1 in case of single-authored OR multiplied by 0.9 when co-authored. All co-authors receive the same grade.

Clearly this is just one way of doing things. In fact we had a committee that worked for two whole years to come up with a 'fair' grading system...

@ Dr. Kristof Jacobs thanks in a million for your prompt response. The information you have provided is commendable and the grading policy in your department is quite fair. If a committee have to work for two good years to come up with a 'fair' grading system, it goes a long way to show how complex and stochastic the process could be.

From the discussion so far, departments and hiring committees in many fields/countries seem to award higher grade to single /double authors and lower grade to multi-authored articles. The reasons are: (i) single-authored manuscripts take away more time and energy and the research is conducted by one and only one person (ii) for research conducted by double authors, it is assumed that both researcher contributed equally (iii) In multiple authorship, it is difficult to know the original owner of the research, we cannot even tell if the senior researchers name is appearing first or last on the list (iv) In multiple authorship also, it has been observed that there are people who contribute nothing to research work but find a place in the authors list. Thank you once more for your laudable contribution on research ethics.

Regards,

Modestus.

@Emad Kamil Hussein, Dickson Adom, Ali Benhmidene , Kenneth Chukwu, Michael W. Marek, Adebayo Adeboye Fashina, Dmytro Leshchenko, Mohammed Salah Nasr, C George Thomas, Demetris Christopoulos. Thank you all for your time and valued comments. I have noted your contributions with delight. It is interesting to read from you all. I hope to get more information and comments on the interesting questions about research ethics considering single and multiple authors in published articles. Thank you once more.

Regards

Modestus.

Thank you Dr. Modestus for your insightful questions.

Regards,

Ken.

As the discussion is about authorship, I will give some inputs on fraudulent authorship too such as gift authorship, honorary authorship, ghost authorship, and hierarchical authorship.

Sometimes, authorship is given as a gift based on many extraneous considerations. Giving authorship to someone in return for a routine technical help, to a colleague in return for including his/her name in a published research paper, and to a relative (often, author’s spouse who works in the same department or institution) are some typical examples of gift.

Giving authorship to the head of the department or institution, simply because s/he is the head is an example of hierarchical authorship.

The habit occasionally seen to put somebody’s name as author for the prestige it confers to the paper (honorary authorship) is also condemnable.

Ghost authorship is the most condemnable form of fraudulent authorship, wherein, somebody else writes for a person. It is unethical to name somebody who has not made a substantial contribution to the work as an author.

Good question, interesting answers.

Dear Jimmy Y. Zhong,

Thank you so much for your professional and comprehensive response. Your wonderful answers are noted with great delight. Thank you once more.

Regards,

MO

Following...

Thank you so much Prof. Kenneth M Towe for your brilliant response.

Regards,

Ken

According to me, first author or corresponding author can be considered as the prime contributor. However, team work is the most essential factor in the research and publication process.

In almost all cases, Original author (contributor) is the first author in the list.

Points are distributed in following manner:

first two authors get 70% (each) of the points and remaining authors get 30% (each) of the points.

It’s rare that an article is authored by only one or two people anymore. In fact, the average original research paper has five authors. The growing list of collaborative research projects raises important questions regarding the author order for research manuscripts and the impact an author list has on readers’ perceptions.

With a handful of authors, a group might be inclined to create an author name list based on the amount of work contributed, though, when you have a long list of authors, it would be impractical to rank the authors by their relative contributions. Additionally, what if the authors contribute relatively equal amounts of work? Similarly, if a study was interdisciplinary (very common these days), how can individual’s contribution be deemed more significant than another’s?

Hence, I will quickly suggest a few strategies for listing authors and why the order can matter as you develop your academic career;

• The “first author” is a coveted position because of the increased visibility and is the first name readers will see, and because of various citation rules, the first author may be the only name visible throughout. In-text or bibliographic referencing rules, for example, could reduce all other named authors to “et al.” Because of this fact, readers may falsely associate the first author with someone having more importance;
• Traditionally, the last author position is reserved for the supervisor or principal investigator (unknown to many scholars though). As such, this person receives much of the credit when the research goes well and the flak when things go wrong. The last author may also be the corresponding author, the person who is the primary contact for journal editors.
• Having said that, there is no uniform rule about author order, readers may find it difficult to assess the nature of an author’s contribution to a research project.

Good contribution so far,

I think, traditionally the first person that appears on the paper article is the lead author and is believed to have the greatest contribution or input in research.

Thank you very much Rohini Singh and Dr. Nikisha Jariwala.

True authors can be found by their articles publishing in a sequence and their related articles on a particular area..

Prof. Kenneth M Towe, I have noted your response with great thanks. From your statement, I believe it is important to look at the novelty, quality and robustness of published articles before putting other factors into consideration. My worry is this: whenever I download an article with multiple authors, my interest is to know the original author or principal investigator of the paper, which often time is difficult to predict. During appraisal, university management try to figure out the original author of a research paper for effective scoring. How do we achieve this?

Dr. Orimoloye Israel Ropo,

Thank you very much for your comments. The information you have shared is noted with delight.

Typically, the first names appearing in a publication is the main author. The other authors are listed in terms of level of contributions. That is, the second and third, ..., etc corresponds to their level of contributions.

Thank you Emmanuel Olaoluwa Eresanya for your contribution.

Thank you so much : Gopikrishna Nidigonda and Amir W. Al-Khafaji for your comments.

Thank you for your contribution prof. Amir W. Al-Khafaji.

It is obvious from the past comments that the first names on the articles are usually regarded as the original or the main author Which quet I agree with.

Only few comments are saying that the order May not necessarily indicates that.

In my own experience on the aspect of rating, 1 point is awarded to an international journals, 0.75 points to an indigineous journals.

Out of 1 point rated to an international journals, if co-orthord, the first author received 0.75 while all other authors receive 0.5 each up to maximum of six authors per paper. Single author of such papers receive 1 point.