Many doubts surround this issue. Who should be as the 1st, 2nd. 3rd.... co-author on the sequence in a paper? who generated the idea or who worked harder on the paper writting. And if some authors worked more focused on the theoretical background, hypotesis and research framework and other ones on the data collection and analysis?
So, all of those questions come up on the moment when you have to establish the co-authors sequence.
What do you think that should it be the most fair and correct sequence of co-authors in an article?
When coauthors have a long time working relationship , they agree on using different name orders in different publications.
Guilherme Frederico
There is not an unique answer to the question due to the different factors around the authorship in a paper. I reckon that the first issue you should take into accout is who should be an author and who shoudn't (http://www.research.mq.edu.au/about/research_@_macquarie/policies,_procedures_and_conduct/documents/Vancouver.pdf). In spite almost none use it, it is a useful resource.
Science area. Depending on the area, there are different practices. Sometimes the authors were listed by alphabetical order ( Physics). However, in others like health sciences, the first author is the one who wrote most of the paper. The major contributing authors come next in order of their contributions. Following this are all other authors listed in alphabetical order. Nevertheless, the latest author is the head of the department or lab.
This is a short view of "the problematic": http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562
There some ideas in the following papers:
Article Who Are Coauthors and What Should Be Their Responsibilities?
When coauthors have a long time working relationship , they agree on using different name orders in different publications.
I think every case might be specific. We have no general rule. An idea is very important and , however only ideas, without relevant elaborations would never give results.
I agree with other respondents that there are no hard and fast rules for who should be the first, second and so on the publication. Sometimes you find all authors have made more or less equal contribution to the work. In such a situation it is not about fairness but consensus among authors. Other factors like authors' roles in the work e.g. who generated the idea, collected data and others can be factored in. All in all, someone has to be the first, second etc. and authors have to agree at some point. My main concern is when someone who has done a significant contribution to the study is left out.
No specific rule. It's based on personal relationship among the authors.
There are no specific rules. But I think, who do more his name will be the first.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking