In mathematical papers we always list the authors in alphabetical order. This makes life simpler :)

The first author is the main researcher contributing signifcantly to the study being conducted, and he would often be the one who writes most of the paper. The second author would be his supervisor, and if there are more to be included, then they the supervisor should make it clear as to why they should be included and what is they contributions.

I totally agree with Mohamed Benmerikhi. However, this is the ideal case but in reality there are some unethical behaviors of supervisors as discussed in this question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Academic_publications_authorship_issues_Who_is_first_corresponding

@Alser Well I do not thing it is big issue. But at the same time you must be so careful by taking this issue. It depends on various aspects. For example, some time the research paper may be significantly contributed by the supervisors and students do mere physical work. In those case I don't think it as unethical. If the research student is so strong in his field, have rich experience in publishing the paper in high impact factor, solves all the research problem, have clear idea in the particular field, come out of interpretation, etc. he can given the first authorship and any deviation can be termed as unethical.

Otherwise the use of the word unethical is not valid.

Correct and perfect Sridharan.

I think it is hard to include all cases when the student can be the first author. Instead, we can summarize at what circumstances the supervisor can not be a first author.

1- Being a supervisor and doing the duties assigned to you by the university doesn't mean at all you are first author.

2- Suggesting ideas for addressing some points still not major contribution. Life is full of ideas. You can get ideas from anywhere e.g. conferences, workshops, forums, literature review. But you can't get the job done or converting the idea into reality without major contribution and sleepless work.

3- Being principle investigator for a grant doesn't mean major contribution.

4- Reviewing the paper and giving a feedback whether grammatically or experimental perspectives.

In mathematical papers we always list the authors in alphabetical order. This makes life simpler :)

I know two different current experiences:

On the one hand, in medicine and clinical sciences, it is normal that authorship varies from one paper to another. Thus, f.i., in one paper the first author is the theoretician, next comes the one who worked on the statistics, then the clinical or experimental proof, and then the one who worked on a kind of state-of-the-art. Then in the next paper they shift their names…

In social or human sciences alphabetical order is a standard procedure, but many times the importance of the background takes the lead. Thus, f.i., first comes a senior researcher, then an associate researcher and the the student...

A very valid question. The same question is haunting me for few months now. I feel there is a great institutional and departmental variability in the authorship issue. In few departments, it has become a norm that only the consultants will be the first authors regardless of their input into the research article. The resident who invariably has the most significant contribution (including data collection, literature review, manuscript preparation) has to content with a second or later authorship. Additionally "honorary authorship" is becoming a bane. In one of the recent article published in Radiology Journal (link http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131710), it was shown that 50% of coauthors performed only “nonauthor” tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria.

Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America. Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guidelines and policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics

Dear All,

A similar question has already been discussed here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_should_be_among_co-authors_of_the_scientific_paper

My question to you:

I have read an article on RG. Number of authors: 1636. Number of pages: 9. IF value of the journal : 7.94. IF value per author: 0.0048.

I think the list of autors was longer than the article itself.

How much idea, work have been contributed to this article by a single person?

Dear Wladimir,

What about the merit of the contribution of authors?

Dear Pankay,

Dear All,

Who are the so called consultants and who are the residents? The notion of "honorary authorship" is very well characterised in Radiology Journal.

My second question is how has been evolved this kind of authorship?

Dear András,

A consultant is one who is in a permanent position (e.g Assistant professor, professor etc.) while a resident is one who is under training (3 years M.D. course-Junior Resident) or post M.D (Senior Resident-this post is also temporary and held for 3 years)

Responding to your second question:

I think this kind of authorship is the result of attitude at the level of Chair (head) of the Department. One should get the authorship he/ she deserves. Not that he is under you and you can do whatever you feel (misusing your position) and suppress the voice of your budding "residents". this is serious and has to be stopped. I feel there should be a multilevel ethical committee (national and even international) to redress the grievances of someone who is denied his due authorship. Its like taking away ones' right and the person responsible should be strictly penalized.

So what do you think I should do with an coauthor who would tend not to order any reagents, but would follow kit/manual and chemicals received. This coauthor would answer my request to select and order kit/reagents that he/she is not an expert and can not take responsibility to select reagents. This person conducts the experiments after receiving research plan, kit/reagents and would prepare particular analysis when instructed what to analyze and by which method (variables, statistical test), but would not prepare manuscript. My concern is that I have a feeling this is technician not a first author although pipetting a lot.

I would suggest, the one who actually drafted the raw manuscript and giving major contributions to the manuscript be the first author. While the rest would be the co-authors and the order depends on the weightage of their contributions in that manuscript

It is impossible to use the authorship order to transmit knowledge on the true contribution of each contributor. Sadly, the traditional publishing institutions still hang on to the authorship as the only way to tell that a person has contributed to a piece of research. However, ResearchGate actually enables all authors of papers to describe their contribution in their own words using the Author Contributions feature, which has realized some of the potential of the internet to create a more transparent scientific culture, as I have previously argued in this commentary

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231225109_It_is_time_for_full_disclosure_of_author_contributions

Article It is time for full disclosure of author contributions

To András Bozsik :

>

> Dear Wladimir, What about the merit of the contribution of authors?

>

A usual implicit agreement in mathematical papers is: if the authors agree to write a joint paper then for the outside world the level of all authors contribution is considered as equal. Thanks to this agreement we avoid possible difficulties in relations between the co-authors. In some occasions the authors write in the introduction something that makes the authors contribution more clear, like: the construction was proposed by A, the demonstration of its correctness by B, the results of section 3 belong mainly to C, but such explanations are used in very few cases (say, in my practice this happened only once).

It is good to see this debated in the natural sciences. It adds to our understanding in the social sciences and humanities. Similar discussions of contribution and importance thereof come to the fore and these are influenced by many things, power issues especially. I had an experience earlier in my career where someone insisted on his name being first on everything because of his position within the department regardless of contribution. This kind of unethical behaviour belies much of the gender politics in ordering authorship. I prefer a democratic approach that is agreed between the authors and takes issues of contribution etc into account, but this also is subject to underplaying power differentials.

Authorship order is something we will come back to time and again across and throughout academia.

This question is rather intriguing. Honorary authorship!!! I have done it a few times myself.....

The real question is who is finally the corresponding author and who becomes the first author. I think that it would be fair for senior scientists to take the last place along with the correspondence (provided that they had the idea and that they provided adequate consultation during the study process and review of the manuscript) and that the first author is always the one that wrote the manuscript.

Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Freedom is limited in the scientific world and honorary authorship is a big menace for all young scientists that struggle for a place in the academic line of papers....

My view is this:

a paper with more than 3 authors is equal to none

if 3 then the actual experimental scientist is the first author

the second is the person assisted

third is the idea owner( the corresponding author)

Authorship has to be based on scientific contribution in initiating the research, analysis and write-up of the report. Degree of involvement from the authors could vary. Yet to be authors, there have to be a justified contribution to the research and/or the write-up process and authors have to be ready take any responsibility for the content in the paper for good or bad.

Owner of idea and writer of the paper is generally the same person as a first name. And workers of this plan and believer the results as middle names and supervisor is the last name

Well, too much discussion is on for this topic that doesn't give any significant help to science and research. To conclude, we can take this more meaningful. The person who is responsible for the particular results to be published can decide whom to give authorship, order of authorship, etc.

Check out these guidelines for authorship: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

The real life could be sometimes like this strip: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562 :)

The discussion in this subject is very important, because the problem of the authorship it is also linked to the team works. And in the team we organize the work in the project "to be done properly", but usually not thinking about the paper in the end of the project.

Sometimes more people planned the methodology, organised the work-flow and conduct experiments, and finally wrote the manuscript together.

F.ex. 3 people run the project, none of them gain the funds for the project, but the project author didn't take part in planning or conducting experiments, analyzing data or writing the manuscript.

So how to decide on the author list. Shall we put 3 names as the equal contribution? And how to persuade to the project author that should not be listed as a corresponding author and or the first author?

dear Karolina Henryka Czarnecka ·

i have this problem since 1976 -- some time you haveto

Do not include his/ her name in a good paper

for Conference papers you allow- no body reads

As per ethics and practice the first author should be an experimentalist

Dear Prof Muralidharan I totally agree!

I was taught that in experimental paper the first author should be an experimentalist. But I've worked in different places/Institutes, and sadly the authorship tends to be "working-place-related" .

I think whoever does the most analysis and drafting/writing should be the first author. Of course the experimentalists should be authors as well but whoever had the most influence on the how the data was analyzed and how the results were presented and interpreted--whoever's voice the paper is in--deserves to be the first author. After all, science is not just producing results but also understanding the significance of the results and helping other people understand it as well.

I do not agree with the view that the experimentalist be first author. Any one can perform experiment as per the guidelines and you need not require special skill to do it. And if you claim you have discovered new methodology on your own (I do not think it is possible in todays world) then you can claim first authorship. I also disagree with Karolina since his view of 'project author didn't take part in planning or conducting experiments, analyzing data or writing the manuscript.' is not correct. In most cases project author is responsible for planning the work, methodology and sometime do writing. If he doesn't know these things he cannot get the project.

hello Ravi

i am a basic electro chemist for nearly 4.5 decades - If there is an earth shaking idea proposed put the gentleman as First author -So far no such ideas have come from anyone --

You can include in your paper the name of your country as he heads the finances -- rediculious

sorry it is your country PM

for the past 2 decades no good paper has come from Asian countries -- sad state of affair

Dear Prof. I thing project author refers to the person who heads the research team, may be supervisor/principal investigator and not PM.

I again reiterates what I stated earlier......

The person who is responsible for the particular results to be published can decide whom to give authorship, order of authorship, etc. (that means corresponding author or supervisor or principal investigator or research head)

I meant the prime minister of the country - do not cross limits

length, weight or volume usually :)

To be serious, whoever wrote it is an author (i.e. came up with the words or musical notes used). Whoever amended it in a significant way, adding new ideas and concepts rather than just 'tweaking' the language (or the notes) is an author. The one who had the original idea (let's write about Darwin or let's write a song about the moon being blue) is NOT automatically an author - in the field of patents though, she may be one of the inventors.

Sadly, in University life, the boss often claims the position of last author even if she has done absolutely nothing (in English, sweet FA). This IS a scandal, but does have the effect that a paper may be more easily accepted and more often read.

i practice publishing papers with 3 authors  ( 1/3 credit or responsibility)

now there are more number of authors

so the credit for an author  =  impact factor/ number of authors

Look at the ICME, COPE, and WAME prescriptions on authorship

Now  we have to give weightage for each others

The actual worker  50%

the guide 25%

rest you decide - more than 3 the paper is useless - even it is published in "Nature"

The question of authorship order is one that should be clearly stated (and put into writing) at the beginning of the project. If a person is in a position to invite someone else to participate on a project, they are also in a position to offer a particular role and a particular place on the authorship list.  This lesson is usually learned by being burnt at least once.  It seems to be human nature to overemphasize the importance and size of their own role when participating in a project.  Therefore it is particularly important that the order be decided when agreeing to work together.

what i practice so far

1. student ( first author)  credit 50%

2. co worker ( middle)   credit  20%

3. my self ( supervisor)  credit 30%

more than three authors i consider no one contributed

Prof. Muralidharan, Prof., can I know if there is any rules that the supervisor should be at the second author or last author? The arrangement should be 50%, 30% and 20% or 50%, 20% and 30%?

to be frank one need not include the supervisor as he is paid for that

it is upto the student to include the supervisor's name

The%s i follow--- need not be followed by others

but the corresponding author should be the supervisor if his name is added

How much writing of the manuscript you practice for that 50%? Would the student work on the manuscript? or would you write it?

In the humanities and social sciences it is, normally, possible to individualice the contribution of each one of the co-workers, and that should be clearly stated. If so, the order of authors in the title is not that important.

As to the credits of supervisors, I think that —in my field— it would be plainly unfair to grant them any credits as "authors" if they are not real co-workers.

Vladimir Kadets · 44.37 · 38.86 · V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University

In mathematical papers we always list the authors in alphabetical order. This makes life simpler.

Yes, that makes life simpler, but probably not more just.

The supervisor is paid for the job--The student pays tuition fess to the university every semester-- Train the student to write in English in his own words - then sit with him and help -let him see what you want - at least two papers help him ; Now the student knows you and he will include your name automatically; now it is up to you to accept

Research teams should discuss authorship issues frankly early in the course of their work together and should decide the order of authorship together.

it is a sensitive issue .

Since one cannot agree on a natural ordering of authors, the only working one is to arrange authors alphabetically, and to mention in the preface that this principle was used when arranging the order of authors.

It does not need to be sensitive at all. For crying out loud it's the content of the book that should matter, not an ordering principle.