I agree with previous answers, it depends on the field. In biomedicine, the most common scenario in these days is that the first author usually is the author that wrote the paper and performed a significant amount of the experiments, while the last author is the leader of the group, and usualy, the correspondent author. Close to the first author you may find those who performed some experiments and contributed with some important ideas. In the last few authors (before the leader of the group) you may find authors who give important input, but only participate in few experiments or give advice with a specific point of the article. There is no written rule. In some cases where two or more authors participate with a very similar input and amount of experiments, it should be stated that those author contributed equally.

The weightage of the first author is maximum and least for last author.

It is impossible to give a unique answer.

Sometimes, the first author is the main author of a paper or its the corresponding author (or both). The last author might be the senior author, i.e., the project or group leader.

In physics and maths, however, it is very common to list the authors in alphabetic order, or to group them by institution and, within it, alphabetically.

Depends on the discipline. One way to overcome potential issues is to include a footnote stating that all authors contributed equally, if that is the case.

I agree with previous answers, it depends on the field. In biomedicine, the most common scenario in these days is that the first author usually is the author that wrote the paper and performed a significant amount of the experiments, while the last author is the leader of the group, and usualy, the correspondent author. Close to the first author you may find those who performed some experiments and contributed with some important ideas. In the last few authors (before the leader of the group) you may find authors who give important input, but only participate in few experiments or give advice with a specific point of the article. There is no written rule. In some cases where two or more authors participate with a very similar input and amount of experiments, it should be stated that those author contributed equally.

It depends on the field and on agreement between authors, but from career perspective it is better if a person has also sometimes been the first author (and in some fields, also published something alone), it does not matter so much if a person has mostly been a second or a third author. Also, if you are the first author, then your work will be cited Yourname et. al., but if you are a second or a third,... author, you'll be et al.

Thank you all Rashid, Robert, Sabino, Frank, Ernesto and Tiia for your valuable inputs. See, your names are put in chronological order, regardless of the contribution (just joking). A lot of information has been exchanged in this discussion actually. It seems now that the significance of multi-authroship is related, in large part, to the nature of the field (which has its own traditions acknowledged by authors), and to the nature of the professional relationships between the authors.

Thank you again,,

Faysal

Thank you Judie, does the contribution in terms of expert guidance is more common than that in terms of a direct contribution into the article (to be a second or a third author)?

Hi

Pls find attached a paper which will clear your queries regarding this topic. Also you can follow the link below to have a look at the thread generated out of a previous discussion on the same topic:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Co-authorship_in_a_research_paper_and_its_effect_on_impact_factor_or_the_overall_weightage_of_the_research_paper

Thank you Judie and Alok for your inputs.

In my view, the first author must be the most important, and the other authors are in the order of the contribution portion to the paper. But many studends' papers are guided by their supervisor, or some youngsters are guided by their senior colleagues (usually the project director), thus the corresponding authors are considered of being the same important author as the first author. The corresponding author can be the second author or the third author or even the last author.

Thank you Dunlian for your reply.

Authorship must be carefully decided by stringent criteria to prevent conflict within, and outside, the group. More details here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868341/

Dear FF,

This question relates to a previous question posed on RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_first_author_on_a_paper_receive_more_credit_than_the_co-authors

Than you Jan for the notification.

Thank you Dave, I checked it out already. Very interesting.

In breif, the first author performed most of the work while the second and third have some contribution in the work and the responsibility will go for the first and sometimes the last one

@ Faizal: In general, the ranking of authors should be based on the quantum of original contribution to the research work. But, in some cases, it is not like that. Due to various reasons, even people who are contributing nothing to the research work are finding a place in the authors list. I heard that due to compulsions also some researchers are forced to include some names as co-authors. But, strictly speaking, people who have not contributed anything for the research should not be included as co-author. This is my opinion

I think in my field (optics and sciences of vision) the view of Ernesto Alfaro is the most common one (I cannot judge whether fair or not)

Generally the authors are arranged in the order of their contribution to the paper, but if the second author and the third author contribute similarly, then the one with higher fame in the academic circle or with the closer relation with the first author will be the 2nd author.

So sometimes the authorship and the sequence of the authors in one paper can reflect many informaiton, including the academic culture.

In my opinion no difference and to my best 1st, last and the corresponding authors may have more weighs - but overall paper is a team outcome and credit could go to all.......

The last author mostly the 'money man' who brings in the dollars for the research and first author usually do the work. e.g. grad student, post-doc, or other type of researchers. Based on the contributions, the authors are arranged. If two authors equally contributed, it needs to be negotiated who goes first. Normally they put a '*' or another sign and in the footnote that 'these authors contributed equally to the study'.

Additionally if it is an important piece of research, the last and senior author (i.e. the money man) might want to be the first author as well. This can also happen.

Although in the past, people were giving more important to the position within the authorship, lately, things are bit different now.

please look at my googlescholar profile and note my H-index:

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-D6JXfgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

The impact is based on the number times the article is cited.

Now, look at my RG Score:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pandi-Perumal_Seithikurippu_Ratnas

Until otherwise, you're applying for funding, the position within the authorship doesn't make a difference.

Another important thing is, publishing in high impact journal always results in higher number of citations. This is not true! You can see from the journals that I published. It is the quality of the papers, which matters equally.

If you see my blog, http://pandi-perumal.blogspot.com; I have given links to most of my academic-related works. This way, someone wants to hire me could make a conscious decision if this person is suitable or not!

No matter you're the first author, if your boss is popular in the academic circle, people always say, 'Dr. John Doe's group published a nice paper this month'. It will take a while for you to establish your name!

First, last and corresponding author have got more weightage. But if the third author is the last author he gets more weightage than secon author in a paper consisting of three authors.

What if PI takes both 1st and corresponding authorship and person who's written manuscript and performed experiment is given 2nd or 3rd authorship. 

2nd authorship or the very last one but not be corresponding author, which one is better?

No difference!!!!!

1st author and corresponding author generally get more or less same weightage, others get remaining weightage, depending on their name' position. For e.g., 2nd author will get more weightage as compared to 3rd author and so on. 

Great question! Interpretation varies with discipline. However, as the importance of credit assignment increases with competition for grants, positions, and promotions the scientific community points to an agreement based not only about the order-merit relationship but also the contributorship made explicit as either a journal request or as voluntary disclose in the acnowledgments section. The standard points to the criteria stated by the ICMJE recommendations http://www.icmje.org/

Bottom line: "guess authorship" (e.g., money man) is simply unacceptable. For those junior scientists who might feel induced to include guess authors in their papers, I recommend the "white bull effect" paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16131560

At the end of the day, committee members know how to find out who did what and who gets (dis) credit !

R

Order of authorship generally shows hierarchy of ownership and contribution regarding that work.

The lead author or corresponding author is the main person but the order varies in systems where seniority and mentor-ship are put into consideration and where the most senior scientist wants to be.

The question still stands high today. Many researchers still ask that question today. In medical field, mainly during publication of the academic degree related papers, first authors are the students. Sometimes two students may share the equal contribution status. If the students have more than one supervisors, usually the last author is the one who contributed significantly in supervising that research. Other supervisors may take second or second last authorship order. Other researchers who contributed in the overall project and fulfill the criteria to become an author may come in between.

Agree with all of you, contribution is usually the main factor in sequence. However, supervisors are not concerning much about the sequence who will be first or last or in between. They only concern that they are involved in research

Generally weighted decreses from first to last author

The most important are first as well as corresponding author.

For the practical purpose you have to rely how your university has fixed the priority. Some university give the equal weight-age to all the authors.

Ernesto Alfaro-Moreno What about if the first author knows how to carry out experimental works but lacks knowledge or experience on manuscript writing?

Kamoru A. Adedokun then it comes to a practical thing. Authors should start learning about writing manuscipts at some point. If the first author lacks experience in the field, the only way to learn is by doin it! My first few articles I wrote them close to my supervisor. I was writing and having advice. When the most important article of that time needed to be prepare, I wrote a general draft, and then we wrot together the final version. Writing is something you never end learning, and the soon you start, the better.

In certain fields, like nuclear, particle or high energy Physics, where large collaborations are common, the order is very different. For instance, I have just seen a paper with 145 authors, they are listed alphabetically, and the corresponding author has the 134th place. In these huge experiments it is very difficult to establish the specific role of each contributor and to assign a proper weight.

Faysal F. Eliyan base on contribution

THE AMOUNT OF WORK CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS BRINGING UP THE PUBLICATION

BASICALLY A TEAM WORK AND THE % OF CONTRIBUTION