First author is the one who carries out the bulk of the experiments, while having an important contribution to experimental design, data analysis, interpretation and writing of the paper. The corresponding author is in most cases the principal investigator. He has major contribution in the design of the work, he will supervise experiments, he will verify or even contribute to data analysis and most importantly he will take over most of data interpretation and writing of the manuscript. Of course variations to the above scheme may occur.

First author is usually the student /researcher who has undertaken the research work. First author is often also referred as the presenting author. He /She is responsible for doing the research practically along with the co-authors who might assist him/ her in the research work or might be the colleagues from the same work group. He is also responsible for preparing the manuscript and analyzing the data. Corresponding author is usually the senior author who provides the intellectual input and designs and approves the protocols to be followed in the study. He is responsible for the manuscript correction, proof reading, whole correspondence during the paper submission, handling the revisions and re-submission of revised manuscripts upto the acceptance of the manuscripts. This is the usual practice in most cases.

In some cases, when the work is done in collaboration with some other institutes, the actual researcher or the first author and corresponding author remains the same, but co-authors increase depending on the number of helping hands in the paper along-with the senior collaborator or senior scientist with whom you liaised with.

I would like to focus on other side also. There are some institutes also where corresponding author becomes the first author also. The person doing the work or the actual researcher/ Student becomes the second author or even a co-author also. This is, in my opinion, unethical or injustice on part of the actual researcher/ student. But this practice is prevalent in some institutions and the students are bound to stick to it being the beginners in most cases.

Another situation which I have seen in some institutes is that the head of the institute or the director is a part of every paper arising from that institute, no matter it is relevant with him/her or not.

So this are the practices prevalent now-a-days regarding the inclusion of names in research papers. Hope you have a better idea of the roles and responsibilities as you mentioned in your question as well as the prevailing scenario.

Thanks and regards

In my experience the first author is the one, who has done the major work on the article. The corresponding author is usually the PI, since he is usually longer available on the position in case people want to contact one of the authors.

I thoroughly agree with the answer of above candidates. First author knows the better about the article since he is the one who did the experiment and at many cases he write the manuscript as well. Corresponding author is generally the professor or the founder or sometime the fund provider. But the responsibility of the article solely goes to the corresponding author since many journal provides contact details of only the corresponding author. if we talk in terms of responsibility, first author is responsible before publishing the article and the corresponding author after publishing the article that is all feedbacks

I think all have explain about first authors clearly

Although there is lot of variation in norms, but it is generally presumed that first author is the one who does most of the work in terms of so called donkey work from calculations, experiments and so on, even writing most part of the text. The corresponding or the last author is a senior author who is the brain behind the work. The other authors are just placed arbitrarily. Many a times author selection is based alphabetically.

I agree with George Komis' comment. But in different culture the interpretation will change and also the evaluation (promotion) system can affect it. Corresponding author needs to help defending the paper. I have experienced a promotion system that corresponding author has the same impact in rank promotion so the boss automatically got the corresponding author position but never helped defending the paper and refused to help defraying the charge for reprint. I have seen paper with co-1st author where one of them never contribute to the paper but just work in the same group. Ethically those things should not happen but in a harsh environment they do happen.

In absence of norms having been defined, the practice followed varies. Many Ph.D. supervisors tend to keep themselves as the first author and this happens either out of their arrogance or ignorance of norms. The norms should be widely known and conventions set. It is a humble and responsible step to promote even the junior author (if he/she has indeed done majority of the work and analysis and it is clear to all authors beyond doubt this fact ) . A senior author who is in authority and thereby responsible to take decisions should place himself at the end and be also corresponding author as far as possible. This is the way we learnt and grew. It is a matter of convention and should be defined. Unfortunately most problems in defining this order result from non existent guidelines and conventions. At the moment one learns these from the conventions existing in the groups one is a part of. In my group, I ask one of the primary collaborator or student to complete the manuscript who graciously leaves the authors column blank and give me this this task to put any author anywhere. This has worked without a problem. Sometimes another senior author wishes to be a corresponding author and I give that liberty. On other occasions when I am not available this corresponding authorship is transferred to another relatively junior author.

Probably this issue is settled reasonably. The only thing left is to state in author guidelines by various journals that these guidelines for ordering of authors be followed as universally accepted norms. Let us pass the results of this discussion so that these are followed.

There is another important issue of concern on a similar subject. In very big groups, sometimes the number of authors is over 400. They normally follow alphabetical ordering principle. In these it becomes impossible to judge who is the principle contributor, who is just a part of the group who does not even know the title. These are very serious issues because they all compete equally with others and have extremely high h index and citations.

Http://help.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/586/~/who-and-what-is-the-corresponding-author%3f/p/8045

The duties of the corresponding author are clearly given in several sources (see http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html and the Elsevier statement http://help.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/586/p/7923)

As for the first named author, it is only in a minority of subjects (primarily life sciences) where the first author is assumed to have carried out most of the work. Who did what and how much they did shold be shown in the contributorship statement not by order of authors. It's impossible to indicate on the single scale of 'author order' the various contributions of different authors - or how important they were to the study. The fairest position to take, therefore, is that the position of an author name in the author list should not be seen as indicating anything about their contribution.

In different scientific communities first authorship has different meanings.

In theoretical computer science and mathematics it has no meaning at all, because there is generally alphabetical publishing, even if there are only two or three authors.

I do not like this but I had to obey this culture when I started my PhD.

Many research communities and commitees do not know this fact or do not even believe that it is true.

For evidence please have a look at the American Mathematical Society's "Culture Statement" http://www.ams.org/profession/leaders/culture/CultureStatement04.pdf

This is the guideline of international committee of medical journal editors: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Thank you Md Asiful Islam.  The ICMJE guidelines (known for short as the "Vancouver Rules" is the best place to go for well thought out definitions and practices.

And despite ICMJE refering to medical editors, it is by no means restricted to medical journals.  Most international journals use the Vancouver Rules as the basis of there own policies. Furthermore, many national ethics bodies accept these Rules for all sciences.  In Germany, for example, the DFG Ombudsman applies the Vancouver Rules in deciding cases in publishing ethics.

See this paper:

http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)16-20o.pdf

As Dr Nahata has pointed out in many case PI takes both 1st and corresponding authorship. So in such condition will 2nd author gets any importance or not

Being "Corresponding Author" (the CA) will, at the moment, bring you no added status.  The CA is the person responsible for liasing between coauthors and journal editor during the publication process.  There is no necessary, nor traditional, link with any other category of authorship (first, senior, etc etc).

In my current local tradition, German biology, (as in all the other countries I've worked) being 1st author will get you status and extra money (and help you get your PhD if you're a student). Being CA gets you nothing.  But it should get you something as being a CA will, if you do the job properly, take about 5% of your work time, is a huge responsibility, and requires considerable diplomacy.

I look forward to CAs being given proper recognition for their work and for author contributions to be assessed by contributorship statements and not by the impossibly blunt, linear scale of author order.

Mathematics and to some extent Computer Science has a difference approach.  Author names are usually listed alphabetically by last name - and credit is equally divided between the group.  Corresponding author is just the one who talks to the publisher on behalf of the group.

There is an interesting correspondence published titled  "Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications" --copy attached.

Hallo All,

Yes, Joseph, this practice is followed by the majority of mathematically orientated subjects such as Theoretical Economics, Astronomy, Theoretical Physics.

Thank you Dr Rathore, Prof. Tscharntke is a colleague of mine and I know this 8 year old paper of his et al.

However, both these approaches are superceded by contributorship statements and the general realisation that a single linear ordering of authors cannot possibly represent the complexities of what and how much individual authors contributed. (For example, It's impossible sensibly to put into a linear ordering the author who did the field experiments on behaviour, the author who analysed the metabolites, and the author who sequenced the DNA.)

Traditions die only slowly though, especially if they are not actively opposed.

Try to read this book.

Day, R.A. (1979), How to write and publish a scientific paper, ISI Press, Philadelphia.

I found something unusual in the acknowledgement. Authors have acknowledged their two co-authors by name (R.M. Tripathi and S.K. Sahoo).

{Title and authors of the paper: Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India B.S. Bajwa a,*, Sanjeev Kumar a, Surinder Singh a, S.K. Sahoo b,

R.M. Tripathi b, a Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab 143005, India b Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

Acknowledgement

The authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement andconsistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K.Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work. We are also thankful to the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Department

of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, for

providing financial assistance during this research work.}

Article Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the d...

Dear Ho,

No, don't try and read that one, it's 32 years out of date.

Read Day and Gastel 2011 Paperback: 300 pages

Publisher: Greenwood; 7 edition (June 16, 2011)

ISBN-10: 0313391971, ISBN-13: 978-0313391972

best, Andrew

The first author should generally be one who writes the paper. The corresponding author should be one who communicates the project rather than the paper, in the past, current and future. 

1) A publication is a part of Intellectual Property. For a paper supported by a project, the IP is usually belonged to the PI, the institute or funding body. For example, if a company supports a project with a condition that the research results would not be published in specific years after the project completes (This is very normal in engineering field). This may disclose the commercial secret and affect some industrial partners if applicable.

2) For a paper supported by funding body, it is normal that the one who conceived the original idea and planned the experiments should be the PI. The idea is usually a spirit of a paper which was conceived by the PI before the trainee was appointed. A trainee would contribute to some technical details along the original idea. Therefore, this is to recognize the PI contribution and the PI should be the corresponding author.

3) The readers need to know more where the job is done. What is a background and future work in this area? It is most convenient to search the PI who is in charge of the group researches in this lab. Therefore, it is an international practice that the PI or the group leader is the corresponding author.

4)  It may be possible to cause outrageous issue for the contributions and authorship for multidisciplinary projects. Some collaborators should be included but the trainee may not know the collaborators’ contributions well. Only the PI, as a coordinator, should be in charge of the authorship.

5) For some collaborated projects, this may be complex to rank contributions or authorship because some authors may similar, such as data, experiment, and modelling. The first author may write and draft a paper but may not be main contributor. Or two experts contribute the similar contributions. Who should take main responsibility?  Could a trainee take such a responsibility or coordinate the complex relationship? The PI should take such a responsibility as well.

6) Finally, the corresponding author means where the job is done. This represents appreciate facilities, equipment and researchers to do this research. Only the PI holds these resources. If a trainee becomes a corresponding author, any readers who are interested in the project will contact the trainee researchers according to the contact details. However, after two or three years, the trainee will leave and his/her position and thus, the trainee will have no equipment and facilities to continue the research. The new opportunities will be losing.

The 1st author is one who does the research work and does the most of the work and the last author is the main responsible person bcz he or she is the main ideology person who have make an idea and research plan. the last author often gets as much credit as the first author,because he or she is assumed to be the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research.other co-author are those who helps you in the research work in doing research and collecting data and paper work. Corresponding author is one who just communicate with the editor and author from beginning till paper get published.

Fascinating !  Do you think that only one author (the first listed) has done the research work and only one author (the last listed) is the main "ideology person" who had the idea for the research ?  Such a neat division of labour is hardly ever the case.  That is why the current international guidelines for publishing practice suggest that the nature and size of contributions should be given in a  Contributorship statement (mandatory in Nature journals for nearly 5 years now) and that author order should not be assumed to indicate anything about author roles.

I have mention that about co-author as well who will help the work and also involve in research, but the last author is most of the time advisor of master or PhD student or the ideology person, who can guide you in all the research study. yes off course in some study all the author have equal conurbation but the last author is usually the ideology person.

not so Anil - the view that the last author has a special role as "ideology person" is considerably out of date - as is the idea that any one person of a team has such overal responsibility for 'the idea'

if this idea is still current in your own local tradition, it is time to work actively to change it !

My view is that many beginners were wrongly guided by the co-authors that is who are the corresponding authors  and so in academic Institutions there should  be a compulsory course needed for the students as part of their curriculum which will guide the students  to the correct path and thereby avoiding others from stealing someothers work.Offcourse in colleges  there was a course regarding thesis writing but not regarding scientific paper writting.So this gap  should be taken care to give a complete shape to science and which in turn will give true shape to the career of the students who are the pillars of  future professionalism.

hallo Karpagam,

Interesting. How are beginners wrongly guided please ?

Yes, there should be courses.  I teach such courses throughout Germany.

best, Andrew Davis

Take a look at  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship)

Unfortunately, this wikipedia article doesn't mention the role of corresponding author at all, and doesn't answer the original question 'what is the difference between corresponding author and first author ?'.

In fact, wikipedia only illustrates the confusion by doing little more than restating the mythologies of the various disciplines without pointing towards a solution.

But the solution is already there, and in the interest of transparency it's time to start using it rather than trying to understand the current chaos.  It's a solution accepted by DFG, ORI, COPE and all the publication ethics bodies that I know of - that is, the corresponding author is the coauthor responsible for organising the process of publication, author contributions are recognised by a contributorship statement (accepted by all major international journals across disciplines), and author order should not be intended or understood to mean anything about author roles.

best, Andrew Davis

I would argue the corresponding author should the one that can better explain the research paper/in charge of the research, while the first is the person who has done most of the work. They could quite often be the same person, but not necessarily, e.g., for the cases when the first author is being guided by a co-author (potentially his/her adviser).

In which order to list the authors largely depends on the area. I personally prefer and use the alphabetic order for my papers: details about the contributions can be explicitely listed in a specific paragraph or in a separated document, if required. Sometimes, anyway, the editorial board will automatically list as first the one who pays for registration (in conferences) or publication.

Anywhere, the corresponding author is simply who will write emails (i.e. who has time/preciseness) to the editorial board or board of reviewers, or to researchers that will write in future to have explanations, and this role is not necessarily related to the "amount" of job done in the research, or to the importance of the person.

Indicating the corresponding author's role is the answer to the FAQ: "who do I have to contact in case of need?"

Hallo Valentina,

The term "corresponding author" is, indeed, sometimes used for your 2nd definition.  But we should try to keep the concepts separate - because their roles are very different because of the different skills they require.  These concepts are the 'corresponding author' and the 'author for correspondence'.  The corresponding author has to take on a lot of responsibility and be a diplomat because they are the one author among coauthors who takes responsibility for organizing the publication process, liasing between coauthors and between authors and the journal editor. The author for correspondence doesn't take on that responsibility and doesn't need the diplomacy, they just have to be organized enough to respond to important queries.

Would you give me some literature for better understanding this topic?

Hola Gloria,

The most important source for these topics is www.icmje.org/ 

On corrresponding authors this says: "The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process ...".   The ICMJE has many members from non-medical journals and its recommendations are widely accepted and incorporated by science publishers.

A useful summary of relevant information can be found in http://www.ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ease_guidelines-2015-spanish.pdf (available in many other languages from the EASE site).

best wishes, Andrew

Thanks a lot Andrew!! 

Best wishes from Chile. 

I used my surname in my publications however this name is not mentioning in any of my documents. Now i am thinking to remove my surname from my future publications. Will this good idea or the existing names should be used....?  

Hallo Manjo, that is a bit of a different question !  However, if you change the name on your publications then it will be difficult to associate all your publications with you - so your publication list will look shorter than it could do.  So I have two recommendations.  First, continue to use the name you have used in the past.  Second, get yourself an ORCID identification and make sure all forms of your name are linked together.  (Look up ORCID if you don't know what this is.)

This second recommendation also applys to those who change their names after adoption or marriage, or who publish in languages with different alphabets (e.g. Thai and English, Indonesian and Chinese, English and German.)

It may be in the law of Pakistan that the corresponding author "is the owner of the paper and .... takes ... advantages if the paper is presented for practical applications or industrial utilization".  But this isn't at all the case in international intellectual property law, which is what counts for international journals.

As for the role and function of the corresponding author, rather than accepting local practices, it is much better to follow the definition used by one of the major sets of guidelines on science publishing ethics.  The most important set for biomedical journals is www.icmje.org/ 

On corrresponding authors this says: "The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process ...".   The ICMJE has many members from non-medical journals and its recommendations are widely accepted and incorporated by science publishers.

best, Andrew Davis

In some cases doctorate student, apart from being the one conducting the research and be the as first author while preparing manuscript, also fortunate to be the corresponding author writing to journals editors/reviewers, responding to manuscript correction and the relevant formalities in publications. This is the case when doctorate student is someone senior enough for the supervisors to assign them to manage it. I was privileged enough to be in this situation as my supervisors are very senior professors/managers of university/government institution. In addition, I was a pioneer student, involved in establishing a laboratory for the faculty and performing initial purchases to start-up. Perhaps rare situation. Very blessed and honored to be in this circumstance.

good morning Gurminder,

It would be interesting to know why you think a doctoral student would be fortunate to be the corresponding author.

Hi Andrew, 

I think it depends on your institution.  When I am in Malaysia my institution did not care about this issue (corresponding/first author...).  My Master's student was applying to a top university in English for PhD.  For me there was no problem to have him do corresponding as well as first author.   

My question was directed to Guminder.  I would be interested to know why Gurminder thinks it's 'fortunate' to be corresponding author.

The first author is the one who did most of the work. The corresponding author is the point of contact with outside researchers who have questions about the contents of the paper.

Sometimes,  selecting the order of the authors and corresponding one depends on personal agreements.

The meaning of 'first author' differs between subjects and between geographical area.  It's therefore better to follow international guidelines and use a contributorship statement to indicate who did what work and how much of it (see http://www.icmje.org/ and www.ease.org.uk/ for access to such guidelines). The 'the corresponding author' is the person who acts as the link between editor and coauthors. The term 'author for correspondence' should really be used for 'the point of contact with outside researchers'.  (Although I know that these terms are frequently confused, even by some journals.)

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications.The contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors.  Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. 

The ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editor ) recommends that authorship should be based on the following 4 criteria:

1.Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

2.Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

3.Final approval of the version to be published; AND

4.Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

For more details one can see following weblink 

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Yes Arun, exactly - see my answer on 11th December above :-)

There is, however, little guidence here on differentiating the corresponding author and the first author.  The best practice would be - that the corresponding author is responsible for guiding the manuscript through the composition and publishing process and that the first author is the first named author in the list, and so governs how the ms or paper is indexed.

these are all perfect answers b best regard to all

Corresponding author or correspondence author is the supervisor of your research from whom all the directions and instructions of research and paper writing come. The First author is you who are most and hardly working on the paper for submission and possible publication.  Great comments from previous contributors..

The corresponding author is not necessarily the research supervisor.  Nor should it be !  The job of the corresponding author is to liaise between the other coauthors and the journal editor.  Therefore the corresponding author needs to have good diplomatic skills and, wherever possible, be the coauthor who can most easily communicate in the journal editor's preferred language.  Most of all, though, the corresponding author needs to be agreed on and accepted by all the other coauthors.

Must the corresponding author be the one with the highest title? For example, if the first author has greater knowledge and publication as the first author in the area of the article, however this is master, while his supervisor is a doctor, but does not have as many articles in the area of this paper. Is it wrong to put the first author as the corresponding author?

The corresponding author navigates the manuscript through the publication process - and so the person chosen should be the one that can do this job best (see my previous comment). Thus the corresponding author need not be the person with the highest titel, need not be the first named author either.

Since the ordering of authors differs between fields the meaning and usefulness of a corresponding author also varies. In fields I am familiar with, the corresponding author is usually the same as the "first author" (quotes because it may not be literally the first). Many journals therefore do not explicitly identify a first author unless different from the "first". There are then several cases where the corresponding author may need to be identified. One example is when a person lacking a permanent academic address is first author. Then the supervisor may take on the responsibility for the paper and be corresponding author. This can be important since it can be near impossible to track down someone who has left academia and so the supervisor stands for continuity in terms of contact. There are many variants on this and in some cases, a person heading a project or who by legal obligations carries responsibility for a project may be identified as corresponding author. This could be the case with some governmental organisations where communications are funnelled through hierarchies for bureaucratic reasons. I am sure there are lots of examples good and bad but the main purpose of identifying corresponding author, unless first, is so that anyone requiring more information can go directly to the main source for such.

So based on this background and the field you are in you may find a good way to determine corresponding author. In most cases, I would say it is the person who has done the most work, or the one who "owns" the project. It is not clear in some cases whether it is the student or the advisor who should be corresponding author. One also has to weigh in the intellectual work behind the project as a whole and from that perspective the person who has done the work, perhaps a detail in a much bigger perspective, may not be the appropriate person for details although that person has done most of the work for the paper in question. So in some cases the question is definitely harder to answer. Not being corresponding author, does not necessarily detract much from being first author since such details are not visible in literature searches and CVs.

NO specific rules or definitions when comes to CA. But PA/1st Author is usually the one who "contributes" the most under all circumstances & agreed in the beginning by ALL authors

Its clear about corresponding author, which shows by word corresponding. The person who corresponding with journal editorial office is known as corresponding author. Rest of duties come as general.

In simple term, a CA is actually a "Postman" who delivers letters & mails to your doorstep. Of course, he or she is much responsible for such delivery. Agreed with Nazeer

A corresponding author is far more than a 'postman' !  They are responsible for the relationship of the authors collectively with the journal editor - and, through the editor, with the referees.  It's a huge responsibility and corresponding authors appropriate abilities.  They need to be good diplomats, have negotiating skills and, also, language abilities that allow them to communicate effectively between authors and with the journal editor.  Choose the corresponding author for these reasons and not according to how much of the research work they've done or what their status in the research team is.  The corresponding author should be chosen for these abilities by the coauthors collectively.  It's not something that can be delegated by any one coauthor.    If you're the corresponding author, and are doing your work properly, you'll be spending around 5% of your work time on that task - if things go wrong (such as disagreements between authors) you'll be spending much more than 5% of your time on being corresponding author.  It's not something you can do well just because you did most of the research or because you're the Prof.

A "postman" responsibility is so huge! You will NOT receive your mails/letters if the "postman" doesn't take his/her "responsibilities"

The corresponding author's major responsibility, and most important task, is negotiation, it's not delivery, postmen don't negotiate - corresponding authors do, that's why corresponding authors are so much more than 'postmen'  :-)

So, a CA didn't do the "delivery job"? Once a paper got rejected, what more to nego?

Do you really think 'rejection' is the end ?  It isn't.  The CA negotiates between coauthors and also with the editor. That's why you need a good corresponding author. 

A paper is part of IP in a project. A project coordination and communications are complex. This includes not only publications, but also the proposal writing, selection and negotiation of collaborators at the beginning and delivery/transfer of outcomes after the project end. Therefore, it is PI duties to decide which way to disseminate the outcomes and to submit the paper to which journal. Any funding bodies or stockholders will contact a junior student if any questions?   

Dear Junye Wang, There are two different roles. The author who deals with the publication process and the author who deals with questions after publication. The first of these is called the 'corresponding author (as the international guidelines available say e.g. ICMJE "The corresponding author ... is the individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during ... and publication process,") Though the two roles might be carried out by the same person, they dont need to be.  And, because they need different skills, they often should not be the same person because different people tend to have different skills. Furthermore, not all research has single PIs.  Most of my research the last 30 years or so has been by cooperation between equals.  We decide together how things are to be done, and by whom.

Dear Andrew, so who should be better to attend negotiation with the project partners as well as with co-authors?  For many industrial projects, any publications will not be allowed or need to be permitted by funding bodies. 

Similarly, the author who submits a paper can be same person as a corresponding author. It is also practical the author who submits it is different from a CA. 

Here we should say that everything will be ok if no any problems. However, if any problems, such as fraud, who should be corresponded after the student has left?

First author is the author involved mainly in carrying out research work, and it is not necessary that original idea of doing that work is also from him/ her.

Sometimes first two authors are considered equal in carrying out the research.

However, the author who guides all authors in planning a research work and who may provide his/ her lab, lab facilities and other requirements is the Corresponding author.

Corresponding author is the most important author in a research article. Research work is mostly done collectively by a group of researchers comprising graduate students, postdocs, research associate, technician, collaborators and people from other labs under the main guidance of one person who is the Corresponding author.

This is the reason that the research journal where the work is submitted makes contact with the corresponding author for correspondence, corrections, proof reading, and accepting, rejecting or accepting with certain conditions.

The published work will be considered as belonging to Corresponding author group. Sometimes there might be two or even more corresponding authors in a research work.   

Zahir makes an important point about multidisciplinary publications. It may not be possible for one scientist to act as guarantor for the integrity of all the research data.  In this case multiple corresponding authors are permitted by many journals.  I also think the use of a supplementary file describing in more detail who did what is a good idea in areas such as clinical trials, genomic analyses or drug discovery.

Can you please give me the names of journals that permit 'multiple corresponding authors' ? 

Sorry if I am causing confusion, but after acceptance it is possible to add a footnote such as "For correspondence pertaining to specialism X contact Y and for specialism P contact Q". We use it in multi-disciplinary work covering biology, pharmacology and medicinal chemistry. Obviously it would be confusing to use more than one corresponding author at the review stage. 

In 2014 I checked over 200 Journal titles in Chemistry, Biochemistry and Biology (my fields).  Only "Nature Materials and "J. American Chem. Soc." mentioned more than 1 corresponding author.  When I contacted them about this they both replied that more than one corresponding author was not allowed but that more than one 'author for correspondence' was possible after an article had been fully published.  These 2 functions are distinct and the requirements for each are different (though it's unfortunately true that the term 'corresponding author is frequently used for both).  There is certainly no reason why the corresponding author need be the senior author, PI, team leader or whatever.  And very often there are good reasons why they shouldn't be.

To access an incentive in Peru you must be "Corresponding Author".

http://www.cienciactiva.gob.pe/images/documentos/convocatorias/estimulos/articulos-cientificos-2017/E039-2017_Bases.pdf

It is appropriate, in many instances, for the first author to take the lead in submitting the manuscript and receiving communications related to reviews and resubmission from the publisher.  While this is correspondence, the role is distinct from that of the corresponding author.  As I understand it, the "corresponding author" is the established investigator involved in directing the work and the point of contact for any questions about the work or requests for reagents, constructs, etc afterwards and who will have access to the primary data.  As responsibility for the conduct of the research generally lies with the PI (or PIs) that oversaw the study, these individuals will be noted as the corresponding author.  In some cases, senior postdocs or junior faculty working under a PI will have had lead responsibility for the work, perhaps even financial, and (perhaps most importantly) may be entering their first independent PI position.  In this case, although the PI has a claim to be the corresponding author, the postdoc/junior faculty may be an equally appropriate choice.  Sometimes, the transitioning junior scientist may be the more appropriate corresponding author, for instance, they have their own independent funding for the study, oversaw the work, had minimal input/oversight from their PI and will be best able to address questions/provide tools/collaborate going forward.

It makes no practical sense to me to note on a published manuscript the author who spearheaded communication with the journal. 

"Corresponding Author" is defined on journal web sites and international guidelines as the 'one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process' (ICJME and others).  The practical sense of noteing it on the published manuscript is to acknowledge the fundamental importance and great responsibility of this role.

First author is the most contributor of the paper. The corresponding author is the contact for the email or correspondent during the publication.

I agree with Professor. Junye Wang

Dr. Davis says that "Corresponding Author" is defined on journal web sites and international guidelines as the 'one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process' (ICJME and others).  The practical sense of noteing it on the published manuscript is to acknowledge the fundamental importance and great responsibility of this role.

This information is only partially correct. The ICJME provides the following excellent description of the responsibilities of the "corresponding author" as generally understood in biomedical research.

"The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors."

While some duties "may be delegated to one or more coauthors--e.g. submitting the paper, providing compliance details--there are other responsibilities that must be performed by the individual that is responsible for the overall performance and oversight of the research (i.e. the principle investigator(s)). Generally the PI will have responsibility to the institution or organization funding the research to ensure the responsible performance of these duties. The suggestion that corresponding authorship is simply communicating with the editor/publication is wrong. That the author who has the responsibility for ALL of the necessary functions (even if some are delegated to another) is the corresponding author.

Jonathon Harton is absolutely correct on the full ICJME definition given above. The additional functions that many contributors to this discussion ignore or do not understand is the need for research integrity and research governance.

I think Andrew Davis made an important point.

Sometimes the student will face problems with the issue of corresponding authorship. The senior colleague may be too busy (which is normally the case in most institutions) with other responsibilities that s/he may not be chanced to go through the processes of article submission and monitoring.

So the student take up this responsibility. In some journals, the approval for submission can only be done by the corresponding author who now must be the student to facilitate the process.

Why dont we have a pre-publication corresponding author who will go through the processes of submission and monitor it and post-publication corresponding author who will be the official (Senior colleague) to be recognized by the journal as the corresponding author once the journal is accepted?

This will solve a lot of problems associated with this and cut shot frustration by a lot of students who must wait for the senior colleagues.

We do - your " pre-publication corresponding author " is the ´corresponding author´ as internationally defined by the Vancouver Rules and other guidelines. Your " post-publication corresponding author " is better called ´the author for correspondence´ (even though often confusingly called ´corresponding author´). You can make the distinction clear on the title page of your manuscript.

As far as I know, none of the “giant” publishers have such authorship ruling. Anyway, authorship order should be agreed by the authors & not by journals or publishers

Following

It is impossible to infer author contributions from author order or correspondence. Some authors are corresponding simply because they funded the study/first author, even if they contribute little to the study. All of the journals should have an author contribution section.

Hi Davorka,

Agreed with your 1st statement. NOT all journals required author's contribution section since it has been generally accepted that 1st author usually contributed the most.

Yes, Jusoff, and also I should note that sometimes PIs will encourage first authors to take correspondence even when most of the intellectual contribution came from the PI.

Dear, Thanks for sharing. For my part, I agree with the contribution of @ Alok Nahata.

Nice topic and wonderful comments.

Thank you for your answers. I found that some of the students have a myth about the corresponding author that the corresponding author is considered as the first author for them this is the best place to find the solution.