The number of multiple author research articles is on the surge worldwide. Which is a great indication of collaborative research and is the way forward for almost every research field and domain. It 'll be hence very interesting to know the idea and inputs of the research community on the question mentioned above. Are all credited equally? How the impact factor of the journal is distributed amongst them? Is there any universal approach? Or different publishing houses follow different patterns?
Usually we prepare the order of names of authors who contributed to an article with the idea of most contributed to the least contributed (i.e. most contributed first and least contributed last). However, this is not a strict rule. For some cases, it is extremely difficult to decide whether X contributed more than Y. However, some journals ask to mention the work done by each author to understand the contribution made by each researcher for an article. When it comes to evaluation, I have seen that committees follow their own criterion to assign marks for each author. For example, 0.5 weight for the first author, 0.4 for the second author, and so on. However, I don't believe that there exists a standard framework for this.
If there are many authors, the text citation truncates after several authors, and there is APA ruling on this that you can obtain. Therefore, the additionally named authors just become "et.al.'s" in text, and their names relegated to the bibliography. Therefore, whilst I consider this is not equal credit, it is impractical to change.
One solution is to write with minimal co-authors. Another solution is to join up with a huge bunch of co-authors to boost everyone's s citation credit and be happy with what credit you get. Finally, as Manjula has said above, primary authors often get most credit as first named author, however sometimes it is politically prudent to put the most authoritative author first, so the rest can ride on the coat tails of the 'God Professor's' brand name.
The assignment of weighting to each author (0.5 to 1st, 0.4 for 2nd, etc) is an interesting idea, however does it really matter? If a great paper had been published (Da Vinci, Michelangelo, ......, Ganguly, 1501), I think there would probably be a statue of Ganguly still standing somewhere. My point is; cultural, social and economic capital is mostly derived from the knowledge contribution your publication makes. Be the first or last author in a bunch of 100 authors publishing a huge breakthrough, and you all share the prizes.
Dear Dr. Manjula Wijewickrema Thank you for your answer. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is no such rule to evaluate or decide which of the authors had contributed the most. But I believe there should be a universal guideline issued by the major publishing houses in practice, which all others should follow. Otherwise, it becomes very confusing. The fact of assigning weightage as per order is very interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.
Dear Dr. Karl J. Matthews Thanks for your prompt response and explanation in detail. However, for budding researchers it matters a tiny bit at the initial stage of their career, I believe. I agree with your last point though, and I sincerely believe that something (guideline) of similar stature should be adopted by all publishers and all journals may guide authors on how to get along with this practice. For young authors, it 'll be extremely beneficial. Even if they don't great equal credit, it is worth knowing how the system works.
This may be an interesting read
Article "Equal" Contributions and Credit: An Emerging Trend in the C...
Although all authors supposedly deserve equal credit, the order of the authors is unavoidable, leading to the assumption of importance to the 'first author'. Most journals now have an appendix to elaborate on the author contributions at the end of the article which says who did what. Often an idea is conceived by a senior person and is practically carried out by a researcher in association with other co-investigators. Now, the principal researcher deserves to take his place as first author, whereas the senior person would be the corresponding author and the rest as co -authors. Also, the trend of equal importance to all the authors is gathering momentum, now a days.
Krishna Kumar Govindarajan Dear Dr. Govindarajan,
Thanks for your detailed explanation. I agree with your first point. It is indeed encouraging to see the journals asking for the details of the contribution of each author. They should/may make it public for better assessment by other evaluators. I sincerely believe that equal weightage for all should be given. It's a win-win situation for the journal and the authors too. What's your take?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing