Ideally large numbers of authors should reflect contributions from various field which is good and should not reduce the credibility of first author

Dear Indumati,

Number of authors does not affect the credibility of first author. It is always good to include the names of each and every person who has contributed towards the work. Good luck for your paper.

Dear indu,

Being single or multiple author in a research paper doesn't affect anything or any's credibility whether its related to impact factor or citation or any other thing. But the first author and corresponding author make the difference....not too much but a bit little.

for e.g. If someone wants to take your research paper as reference and then he/she needs to code your research paper as reference in the running text of his/her paper or manuscript. if the person is following a reference pattern/ style where the first author name comes and for others et al then he/she has to write first author name and then et al (like your name is Indumati Sharma....so it will come Sharma et al.). Although it doesn't bothered credibility.

Any how 1 more thing that makes a little more difference is the "corresponding author". It is the person whose mailing address is registered at the publisher database and also mostly written on the title page of the paper and if someone curiously wants to ask anything about anything related to paper, then that person will ask to the corresponding author not the other authors as he only got the mailing address of the corresponding author.

So I will suggest you if you are talking about the losing of credibility because of multiple authors in a research article then leave feel free from this harmless fear.

But i would to like to advice you, if you get a chance to your authorship then give the first preference to corresponding author although unfortunately most of the time this part belongs to your concerning guide or supervisor and honestly speaking rarely it comes to your side or in your favour.

Anyhow if you don't get the corresponding authorship better to go for first authorship.

With my best wishes

GOOD LUCK !!!!!

1) The number of authors has nothing to do with the credibility of a paper.

2) Although it would be sensible to evaluate productivity by dividing the number of papers by the number of authors, many institutions do not do so, which encourage undue authorship.

I have two criteria for including authors on a paper - neither are affected by any consideration of having a specified number of authors.

1) Each author must have contributed significantly to the paper - to the extent that publication of the paper would not have been possible without their contribution. Be it in field work, paper writing, editing or lab work.

2) Each author must if asked be able to answer any question concerning the paper and be able to 'defend' the findings.

These are the criteria I apply and after that the actual number of authors determines itself.

Cheers

Paul Jones

@ Paul

In my papers, I list as coauthors all the people having played a significant role, but if I were to expect them to be able to defend the findings, there would be very few authors.

If they do not understand the study and its implications then they should not be an author - its a bit like signing a document without reading it first !

Paul

As everyone involved in science - regardless of age, experience and achievements - I have also my thoughts on the setting of the authors.

It's hard to argue with the legitimacy of placing as the authors of those people you mentioned in the first point of your last answer. If anything surprises me, it is the fact that among potential authors you are not giving a person who is "spiritual father" the idea of publication.

I think that this issue needs more comment. In my opinion, contemporary system of dissemination of scientific achievements is very flawed. One of the most striking signs of his disability is virtually complete absence of the possibility of publishing ideas for research. Therefore, the originator of a particular project, absolutely should be co-author.

I also have mixed feelings about the selection of authors according to the criterion of skills to defend the results of the entire work. It seems to me, that the use of this criterion will be very often at odds with the idea of ​​multidisciplinary research (in other words - in conflict to create teams of specialists to perform a specific job).

Paul

I think that in most works involving more than three authors, many coauthors are unable to defend the study. This does not mean that their contribution to the study is negligible. If they don't sign the paper, there is little chance that they will help you the next time. People that can defend the paper should be corresponding authors.

Hi Daniel,

It may be that I am in the field of environmental toxicology which is somewhat interdisciplinary in its nature and also that I work in a relatively large research group (3 profs, 5-6 PDFs, 10-15 grad students) that has collaborative research projects worldwide. We will frequently publish papers with 10 or more authors (see my contributions) and I assure you each knows the intent of the study, the methodology used and the meaning and significance of the findings. In general our papers are written by the grad students, it is their research, and they will be assisted in experimental work and initial paper drafting by the PDFs. Then the papers go to the profs (PIs) for review and editing. The PIs of course are also the ones that write the grant proposals to fund the work. So in general our work is a team effort in which each person has a full understanding of the research published.