Let's take the example of a PhD project with a lead supervisor and multiple co-supervisors.Our approach goes as follows:
The first author is the PhD student, who did the bulk of the work and the writing of the drafts.
The last author is the lead academic supervisor of the student.
Both first and last authors are shown as corresponding authors.
If the PhD student collaborated with other students (PhD or a MSc), additional students would be shown - as a function of their contribution - as first author +1, +2, etc.
In numerous cases, we indicate joint first-authorship in footnote, for instance, when the PhD student collaborated with an MSc thesis student.
Depending on the level of contribution, co-supervisors would be shown as last author -1, -2, etc.
Special treatment applies for co-supervisors who are knowledgable in a particular field that has particular relevance to the manuscript. The lead supervisor in those cases offers the last authorship to the co-supervisor, while retaining the corresponding authorship.
By following this ordering, the "middle author(s)" may have contributed the least to the manuscript (which, in most situations is not at all the case).
Good luck, and please, do not forget to vote (push the green or orange arrow) to qualify my answer.
Benedek
As long as the advisor is the corresponding author, it doesnt really matter in which position he or she is. Some organizations do appreciate the main authors of the paper to be the first ones because they tend to be referenced more often: A, B, C et al.
You can try to find the book mentioned on this review for more information: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/mioc/v93n3/bookrev1.pdf
Depends a lot on the country and institution. The first thing to consider before the order of the authors is the authorship: who should be there and who shouldn’t. Usually this is regulated by the Vancouver Protocol (http://www.research.mq.edu.au/about/research_@_macquarie/policies,_procedures_and_conduct/documents/Vancouver.pdf) however, while the rules are very clear, very few scientific groups follow it. This is because in order to be considered author of an article you should have made a significant intellectual contribution to it; not only supervise the project, perform experiments, or provide funding. Under this definition most of technicians wouldn’t be authors, but also most the PI’s won’t be either.
About the order; in my first laboratory (solid state physics) the authors were listed by alphabetical order. However this is not the most usual case. Usually the first author is the one who had the idea and performed most of the experiments. After him/her the order is a measurement of how much they contributed intellectually to the paper. If the (up to three) first authors collaborated equally to the publication, that can be stated with a foot note. Usually the last author is the head of the laboratory. In most journals you can write an "author contribution" statement after the acknowledgments (in some journals, such as Nature, is even compulsory), where you can specifically define the contribution of each author.
In choosing the corresponding author I have observed a clear difference between Europe and US. In Europe the corresponding author is usually the person who is able to answer any scientific question about the paper, including the experimental detail and also the one who will be responsible of any possible mistake. This is, in most cases, the first author because he/she is also the one submitting the article and, therefore, establishing the communication with the editorial board. On the other hand, in most US labs the corresponding author is the last author. In any case, most journals have their own definition of corresponding author in the "guide for authors"
The order of author depend who will make the major contribution to the paper, the person who takes the lead in writing or the person who produced the first draft of publication. The choice of corresponding author is usually made by the authors and is based on any number of criteria, including research role, authority and personal or professional qualities (Jaime A. et al., 2013). The corresponding author is generally understood to be the person who holds all communication with journal editors from submission to publication keep co-authors informed and involved during the review process, and corresponds with members of the scientific community after manuscript publication(Department Guideline on Authorship, 2010).
Please receive this link about corresponding authorship
http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)16-20o.pdf
Usually order of the author is according to contribution of the person in concerned research. Principle investigator is the first author and coauthors are listed in order based on role played by each person in investigation. In India , for the recruitment or promotion for medical professionals in medical colleges , it makes a difference whether you are first author or co-author. In due course it will be compulsory as per norms of Medical council of India to have research papers as first or second author. Even points earned as first author are more than earned as co-author in competitive examination or selection procedure.
Well, I don´t think that this decision depends much on the statement "Different journals or funding organisations have different preferences"... The first author is most frequently the one who did the majority of the work (usually this is a PhD student or a Post-doc). The second one is the one who has been most close to him (usually working closely with the first. He/She could be for example his daily advisor in the lab. Therefore the second author in a number of cases appear as be the corresponding author. As to the last author, this can be the leader of the project / group, etc. Certainly, these are not general rules, just some observations. The decision can vary a lot due to geographical, institutional and, most importantly, personal preferences within a given research team.
I think usually the first author is the author that did the majority of the work on the research or project (in terms of research work, data contributions, data analysis, wrote the paper, and submit to the journal ), the second author contributed the second most, etc. If two people contributed an equal amount, obviously one will have to be listed ahead of the other, but whoever submits the article can choose to indicate that those two people contributed an equal amount (using an asterisk and a footnote or something). Mostly the supervisor of the research is the last co author.
From my little experience, the first author is the one who performed most of the experiments (the student). After him/her the order is a measurement of how much they contributed intellectually to the paper. The corresponding author is the last author (the advisor).
In our lab the person who does most of the bench-work goes first, but provided they can produce a first draft the presents the findings in broad context, and in a useable format. The project leader goes last (this is usually the lab leader, but not always). Between second and penultimate, relative contribution is the main factor. If there are 2 senior people (project leader and lab leader, for example) the project leader will be last, and the lab leader second-to-last. However, there are no hard and fast rules. This is something that should be understood by the whole team before the project proceeds very far.
We follow pretty close to the system described by Jan, and it seems generally popular and accepted especially within analytical journals. There do seem to be different systems in other subject areas, so perhaps universities/journals should form an agreement on the order as it is very important to researchers. As in all these systems, it is reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of everyone concerned and unfortunately there are occasions where unscrupulous supervisors/managers grab number 1 author without doing any work for it, luckily this has never happened in my personal experience.
generally, order is decided on the contribution of each individual. Most of the time real field worker ( experiment performer have first author ship and last oneis star author, who may be your leader or guide (idea / facility provider). in-between you may add others name as per their quantity/quality/importance of work.
The Vancouver Protocol was first described by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and is now applied across all disciplines in the world. However, it is important to considered in order to be author of an article you should have made a significant intellectual contribution to it; not only supervise the project, perform experiments, or provide funding. Generally, the first author is the one who had the idea and performed most of the experiments. It is followed in order to measurement of how much they contributed intellectually to the paper. Usually, the last author is the chairman of the laboratory.
Authorship depends on contribution (of-course scientific contribution) of the authors. First author always be the one who has taken maximum responsibility of work. Then 2nd, 3rd and so on would go accordingly for their amount of scientific contribution. Last (or corresponding) author should be the group leader (most senior author)/ supervisor of that particular work.
Hi dear Owen
Authorship credit should be based on:
1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
3. Final approval of the version to be published
Also, the first author commonly is novice researcher and the research is mainly its work. The latest author usually is the experienced and professional researcher that needs no grant of the research. Other authors are devided to the proportion of cooperation
Sincerely
The first author of any work should be the leader, the principal investigator or the participant who has contributed most to the development of the work that you want to publish. Other authors should be selected taking into consideration the relevance of its contribution to the work that you want to publish.
Many appreciable answers already are there into the original question asked by Dr. Fenton. I will share some of my observations during my research carrier regarding authorship. In some places, it is observed (and many researchers know that it is true) that people (P) give authorship to the person if he is the head of the Institution/ Principal/In charge of some thing else (let them be "Q') from which the "P" is getting or is expected to get some help other than the topic of the published paper, then "P" includes the name of the person "Q" in his article who has really no contribution to that paper. In some cases to follow the ethics of publication, many "P" just gives the ready made paper to be overlooked by "Q" in order to include "Q" as an author. I will ask the scientific community are both P and Q ethically doing a good job/science?
In this context I do not hesitate to salute one of my post doctoral guide who has given me his full laboratory facility to exploit, given many timely important suggestions to my work, helped at extreme conditions to arrange funds for the work, morally boosting me at many time points etc. but finally strictly denied to be an author in my published article since he has not enough idea about my work and had not any intellectual inputs in my experiments, result analysis and interpretation. Let such type of people are be "R". And really these people are ethically the real scientists of the world. They are hungry for science but not for publications.
Please raise your opinion if you have such experience with P, Q or R.
Sometimes two of three (or more) researchers who have worked on the paper, have equal proportion to that work. Unfortunately, in this situation there isn't a suitable rule for selecting the first name. In the other words, while the first name is believed to the main researcher, if he/she has the same proportion as second one, what is the appropriate order for first and second name??
@Biswaranjan, Thanks for your good point.
The "Q"s are not paying the money from their own pocket, but do some assignmnet/agreement through administrative process. (This is because they are BOSS). However, I do not agree with the without-cooperation authorship, but it must be admitted that such research will not be conducted without their support.
Thus, their authorship did not matter when they support a part/whole of the costs of the research, (the authorship order must be arranged according to the agreement of authors).
It is interesting that some of "Q"s are request their authorship! That is a bad ethic.
In my opinion, the decision in this case should be transferred to the original/main author and they must act based on scientific and moral principles.
Unfortunately, this is a real and progressive problem.
In my opinion, clever scientists distinguish "Q" s by having a look at the full affiliation of the authors.
Perhaps this is an option that the contribution proportion of each author must be determined/mentioned in a part of the published paper beside the other parts like Abstract, Key word etc.
About your experience in post-doctoral opportunity, I must say that the "R"s are respected and rare, and I think it's very hard to recognize them among authors of a paper.
Dear Raoof,
I absolutely agree with your opinion. However, do you think that the "Q" as boss only, sometimes should be included as an author? I hope there is a particular section exists for them as the so called Acknowledgements section in an article. I do agree that some times they have to sign on some papers to get funds for a scientific worker and it is their duty. I do not disapprove or disagree that they should not be placed in the authors list. However, Science ethic does not approve them. Perhaps they may share the authorship in partly published paper such as abstracts in conference and so on. You are true that the head of the project (PI) should decide it intellectually about the authors. Those have contributions in conceiving the problem, conducting experiments, analysis and interpretation of results, drafting the article, proof reading, finding the right Journal should have the authorship in order of their % of contribution as above.
It is again true that it is a very very rare case to find a boss like "R".
The first thing to consider before the order of the authors is the authorship: who should
be there and who shouldn’t. acknowledgement and higher authority considered for authour sequence.
@Biswaranjan, Thanks for your agreement.
No scores are assigned for people whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgement section. For this reason, the name of "Q"s should be included among the authors.
Let's talk about the rating system for articles in my country, (IRAN).
The papers are evaluated according to scientific values, (The first table). This table is only about articles (for non-medical universities) and other research activities are not included. The approved scientific journal was identified by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT).
A slight modification occurs in rates according to the attitude of the evaluation team.
The second table shows the distribution of scores among the authors in a joint paper.
Publication type ------------------------------------------------------------------ Score
High IF ISI paper ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8
Low to medium IF ISI paper ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5-7
Scientific-research papers in national Journals (Approved by Iran's MSRT) ------ 5 s
Scientific- promotion papers in national Journals (Approved by Iran's MSRT) ---- 3 s
Conference papers in international level ---------------------------------------------------- 2 s
Conference papers in national level -------------------------------------------------------- 1 s
The score proportion percent of each author from the assigned score to each publication
Number of authors -------------------------- First ------------------------- Co-authors
1 ------------------------------------------------- 100% ------------------------------- -
2 ------------------------------------------------- 85% ------------------------------ 45%
3 ------------------------------------------------- 75% ------------------------------ 40%
4 ------------------------------------------------- 70% ------------------------------ 35%
5 ------------------------------------------------- 60% ------------------------------ 30%
6 or more -------------------------------------- 50% ------------------------------ 28%
The arrangement of authors may be strongly influenced by the above mentioned pattern.
See also a good discussion of this topic:
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/how-do-you-decide-authorship-order/
Depending on the degree of the contributions. Head of the team is last autor.
I am a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned the word that I think is crucial, which is "communication". I find that because of differences in different countries, scientific disciplines, journals, etc., the value of protocols and rules is relatively limited. I recommend to draft a list of potential authors and discuss the order with all those involved. Only through open communication a consensus can emerge on the final order (and expected related activities).
As per my knowledge authorship order should depends upon the contribution of an individual in the particular research. Those who are currently taken up the problem and checked for specific results could be considered as first author, followed by contribution made by the colleagues and task given by the researcher, scientist or Professor could be considered as corresponding author.....
Usulaly, the FIRST AUTHOR did the bulk of the job. Professor goes as the last one, but he is the CORRESPONDING author. In the case all authors are of equal rank, order goes along with contribution. In the case all contributed on the same level, order is ALPHABETICAL. The corresponding author is the one with superior computer skills to go through USER HOSTILE submission system.
First author who do more bench work and write the manuscript.
corresponding author can be a first author if he or she write the manuscript.
Second author between first and corresponding one.
It does seem to differ between journals/countries. Generally the first author is the dog's body who is responsible for the majority of the work: be it concept and experimental design, labwork, writing up and interpreting the data. final author is normally the Senior academic responsible for guiding the first author (sometimes they do nothing more than read the manuscript and provide input - but they should be involved in conceptualisation too). All the middle authors are assigned according to the value of their input - not their status in dept/lab. Here some lurkers may slip in too - normally people who think they belong on the paper but have actually had a token input at best, as well as gift authors to garner favour. Pankaj up above summed it up pretty well and Alexander's view of the corresponding author is spot on.
Guys, I need one suggestion from all of you. I did a short term post doctoral work in other than my home country. There, I started my work starting from standardizing the instrument, carried out the experiments (in the work one girl "x" has assisted me), analysed the data (including statistical), interpreted the data, wrote the paper (fully without any bodies help even), edited it once again for English and references), added the references and then I sent it to the supervisor for correction. That time the girl who assisted me was subsequently admitted for master program under my supervisor and my supervisor has assigned the same topic of research to her. After she has joined, she did one more experiment (using other technique) and this section was added to the ready made article prepared by me. Then, from my collaboration network from my country, one more person added one more experiment to the paper to strengthen it. Mean while after the paper has been completely written by me, my supervisor wrote a grant basing on the paper and got it also. So, my contribution has provided a grant to my supervisor and has given a ready made paper to him before he wrote and got the sanction of the grant. Now, when the paper is going to be communicated, the so called girl who has assisted me is gonna the first author and I have been put in the 2nd author place. I reacted and refused him to be an author in the paper if I cant be the first author of the paper. Is my reaction is correct. Please suggest me.
The biggest problem with multiple authors and contributors is their perception of their value of their contribution, which is often seen as notably less by the person who has performed the majority of the work. In this instance it is not possible to exclude your supervisor. The exclusion of the other two authors depends on whether you are willing to accept their contributions, or run the journal submission gauntlet of submitting your paper as it was when you first sent it to your supervisor. in all instances it appears impossible for you to be superseded as the first author - but logic can often be overwritten by political manoeuvring. I'd say accept the inclusions and add the minions as authors, but stand your ground regarding first authorship and make sure you are the corresponding author so that you can prevent unsanctioned changes.
Dear Strong. I very happy to see your suggestions. I put all my logic in front of my supervisor but he is still not willing to put me as 1st or corresponding author. The other two people must in the authorship list but from all aspects I contributed the highest and it may be 85% in work and almost 95% in writing. Only two part were added in the paper and finally it was over looked by the supervisor. So the supervisor should understand the issue. Will it be good if I communicate the paper without their consent by putting me as first or corresponding author but the list of the authors must be according to their contribution.
Take a read on this reference: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050018#pbio-0050018-b003
Try to read this book.
Day, R.A. (1979), How to write and publish a scientific paper, ISI Press, Philadelphia.
The position of the first author varies with the area of scientific knowledge
So I understand that you mean the position of the lead author. In my area of knowledge that is technology the first author is what influences intellectually in the article and he pushes the team. The author who runs the methodology is the first placed.
I aim for a contribution assessment similar to
https://www.yumpu.com/sv/document/view/32701490/trying-an-authorship-index-imber
Let's take the example of a PhD project with a lead supervisor and multiple co-supervisors.Our approach goes as follows:
The first author is the PhD student, who did the bulk of the work and the writing of the drafts.
The last author is the lead academic supervisor of the student.
Both first and last authors are shown as corresponding authors.
If the PhD student collaborated with other students (PhD or a MSc), additional students would be shown - as a function of their contribution - as first author +1, +2, etc.
In numerous cases, we indicate joint first-authorship in footnote, for instance, when the PhD student collaborated with an MSc thesis student.
Depending on the level of contribution, co-supervisors would be shown as last author -1, -2, etc.
Special treatment applies for co-supervisors who are knowledgable in a particular field that has particular relevance to the manuscript. The lead supervisor in those cases offers the last authorship to the co-supervisor, while retaining the corresponding authorship.
By following this ordering, the "middle author(s)" may have contributed the least to the manuscript (which, in most situations is not at all the case).
Good luck, and please, do not forget to vote (push the green or orange arrow) to qualify my answer.
Benedek
The first author is the one who contributed most to the scientific research and may act as corresponding author as he can answer any study related queries but deciding the authors to be listed in the middle is difficult as objective measurement and grading of contribution of each and every other is very difficult at any level of publication. Ideally, the distribution of work and the level of involvement of each author should be assessed periodically and the order of authorship should be decided in the beginning of work itself. The corresponding author should be selected based upon his seniority, knowledge about the work, communication skills and availability for long period after publication of article.
I have another question.
Who makes the final decision about a journal for submission of a paper to? The first, the last author or all coathors together???
@Kira, All authors should agree on position in the author line before commencing writing to avoid subsequent conflict. It also signals how much work each is expected to do.
It usually depends on authors' discretion. And if such is not the case, it can depend on how much an author contributes to a particular paper. Publisher is least concerned with this issue.
(co-)authorship of scientific and scholarly publications can be claimed by all who made significant intellectual contributions to the completion of the research described in the publication. Since research has over recent decades become more and more teamwork, issues of authorship can sometimes become subject of discussion. Policies differ between disciplines and between institutions. It would be useful to check whether you institution has issued any guidelines or code of conduct on this matter. An example is given in the following link: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html In case your institution has not developed a policy, you could check with your national Academy of Sciences. Also some journals have established guidelines for authorship that need to be consulted before submission of the manuscript.
Rules on the order of authorship also differ between fields of research. Often it considers the listing in order of their degree of involvement in the study. Sometimes listing is simply done afphabetically.
Although listing authors in order of the involvement in the project seems straightforward, it often generates discussion. Besides, the fight might actually be on who is the last author. Historically biologists placed the principle investigator (supervisor, head of research group/dept) as last author, and this is considered ‘the place to be’. This practice has meanwhile become common standard in most science and engineering disciplines.
I personally feel that the co-researcher who does most of the actual writing should also be the first author. In my research projects, I usually ask the PhD student to write up the manuscript, because as such this exercise (while sometimes cumbersome due to numerous and extensive reviews by the supervisor) contributes to his/her training in scientific reporting/writing. MSc students who contributed to the research follow as co-authors, while my name (as supervisor) would usually follow last in the list.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship
Recently we submitted paper to propose author categorization. The Editor in Chief of a Journal suggested to incorporate a number of improvements including an opinion survey on the issue. He wrote, "If you could make the above improvements, I believe your manuscript could become an authoritative work on authorship." That encouraging note from the Editor in Chief prompted us to conduct the survey. However, for a stronger and comprehensive conclusion, a wider participation from around the globe is necessary. I sincerely hope that you will spend 3-4 minutes to express your opinion using the survey form given in the following link. I shall also appreciate your kind effort to share the link among your colleagues. Following is the link for the survey form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc9JVJfDPjfOzeIM5ghSrfEi5fGbFjOLkLPaGGc5sdLktQe4Q/viewform?c=0&w=1
Gretchen L. Kiser offers a seminal article on a related topic titled "No more first authors, no more last authors" in this week's Nature.
As she writes the evaluation of papers for e.g., promotion still predominantly considers first and last/corresponding authorship. Yet, she identifies a disconnect between the increasingly complex transdisciplinary research and lack of recognition of the "middle author" who might have facilitated a crucial step in answering the research hypothesis. So, we should try to recognise the scientific contributions to a research in new ways (on that, you may see my suggestions included earlier in this series of answers), thereby promoting an academic leadership more conducive to team spirit.
Link to article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06779-2
@ Benedek Plosz Yes, a nice and timely article. All we know the claims she made is correct even not in interdisciplinary articles. The matter is, where articles are scored, such concept need to be incorporated. Such as funding agencies while sanctioning schemes, for promotion, for career advancement and for quantifying potential activities in acedmia. Otherwise, these are only our perceptions.
Thanks, Biswaranjan! Again, we can apply special treatment to "key middle authors" that can be considered by funding agencies, e.g., sharing the corresponding authorship with them (there is no rule or limitation as to how many corresponding authors there can be on a paper).
Usually, the corresponding author is the project leader, while other naming order is decided based on the contribution to the work.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agricultural Science
- Environmental Science