Corresponding author or first author? Which is more significant in the article?
Have a look in the given links:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Authorship-wise_what_is_the_difference_between_a_second_author_and_a_third_or_last_author_in_a_journal_article/1
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Difference_between_Corresponding_author_and_First_author_and_what_are_all_their_responsibilities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_first_author_on_a_paper_receive_more_credit_than_the_co-authors
If you look for glory, first author is best. But, you do not do you? Like all of us you are interested in seeking the truth :) In such a case, corresponding is always best, as you then have control of the reviewing process and keep the liberty of arguing against all these silly referee comments threatening to destroy your beautiful article.
I agree with Kjetil.
As a corresponding author you have the liberty to accept the suggestions of reviewers which will improve your MS and on the other hand you can argue against those which in your opinion are not all acceptable.
If you look for history,. - It depend of year in that the plant's name is published.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles