Why would anyone add the IF of a journal to her/his CV? It seems a waste of time, as it changes every year! I have never heard of this before, and it seems like a complete waste of time and space. We are here for the science - not for some vague measure of glory. 

Positioning of authors is debated everywhere, it seems. My position is that the position is absolutely uninteresting - every author of a paper might have done similar work, and then the ordering becomes a mess to produce, possibly with quarrels about the position in line as a result. I detest such a system - it's degrading to all. I advocate strict alphabetical ordering - the only NON-ordering! - and that the main author - if there is one - gets to take the "corresponding" author role. Any other system is impossible to detect from one given paper.

Hi Naemeh

The first author will be the principle investigator and main author. They are usually also the correspondence author too. However this does not always apply. For instance, if a subsequent author (2 -6...) wishes to field the reviews from the journal and/ or the first author is not able to attend to the reviews (illness, leave, crises etc) then any of the other authors can take the role of correspondence author. It is worth noting however that all authors should agree to any amendments in the paper before resubmission.

See:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Difference_between_Corresponding_author_and_First_author_and_what_are_all_their_responsibilities

سلام- هرگونه عواقب و مسئولیت متوجه نویسنده مسئول است. معمولا برای تز دکتری دانشگاهها خواهان  نویسنده مسئول بودن استاد راهنما هستند.

البته موارد مذکور در بالا هم صحیح  است.

Generally the two are synonymous, i.e. designation of corresponding author goes to the one who took the lead in the entire thing.  In some journals the authors are listed alphabetically. Consequently it is the corresponding author who is more significant or synonymous with what I think you mean by first author.

Actually, first author probably has more value, because when a publication is cited or listed in your CV, the corresponding author is not identified but it is clear who is first.

Usually the first author is also the corresponding author but not always. Sometimes, if authors are listed alphabetically instead of by contribution, the author who contributed the most will be the corresponding author.  Sometimes it's just a matter of convenience - if the journal is, for example, in the US, and the lead author is is Australia, an author who is in the US may be the corresponding author.

When a paper is written by a research student and his or her resesrch superior, it is customary to put student name as first author. The reseatch supervisor is normally already in a tenured post, Putting student name as first author helps the student in advancing his/her academic career. In a multiple authors paper, in order to avoid any dispute later,  the alphabetical order is preferred - research supervisor name comes in the end.

Hi,

When sending an article for publication through the online system you are asked if you are the correspondence author, but that does not , necessarily, means that you are the first author, the system gives you the option to change the order of authors. I do not think that a second author is valued less than the first author, since it goes against the idea of collaborative research work.

The first author is not necessarily the same as the corresponding author - there are plenty of possible principles regarding the order of authors.

I advocate the use of the strictly alphabetical order - the only "non-ordering", because I find it absolutely silly to rank authors. First, it may be difficult to say who did most of the work, especially if there are plenty of authors of the paper - the world record is something like 500 authors (a summary paper on a very big project at CERN), and it is absolutely impossible to order them correctly according who did how much. 

Try to convince your coworkers that the alphabetical one is the right one, and let the "leader" - if there is one - be the corresponding author.

Normally when there are more than 2 authors, the paper is cited by name of first author and et al is added. For example, Ramaiah et al. It may make significant alteration in 'Citation Index'. There are situations when adding name of some well known persons helps in acceptance of the paper. These persons need not have contributed anything except their stature and name. It is a mine field and different labs / research institutes have different rules.  

I think that the colleagues above have outlined the question very well, in a traditional context.

Usually ALL authors in a paper, get equal merit in terms of the journal  Impact Factor, that is,  if the IF is 3.2 all authors can add this "number"  to their Curriculum.

Now in terms  of PRESTIGE, the first author is the "star" of the paper. As other colleagues have mentioned above the corresponding author is the most experienced member of the team who can handle the submission process and the correspondence with the reviewers. IN this context , the LAST author is the second "star" of the paper .. being usually the team's leader. 

There are some occasions where the POSITION of the author might get a different evaluation metric, as in cases of tenure , of specific public grants, of specific scientific  awards etc . As far as I know there are many variants of this sort of evaluation system and every country has its own scoring style. In this evaluation scheme being the corresponding author DOES NOT provide any additional points.

BOTTOM line is that for the majority of our academic evaluations any position in a paper will do ( since we receive the same IF). Being the first author is a "flag to the memory" of our colleagues. Being the Corresponding author has no particular merits. 

tnq so much 4 ur valuable answerssss, highly appreciateddd ...

Regards

Why would anyone add the IF of a journal to her/his CV? It seems a waste of time, as it changes every year! I have never heard of this before, and it seems like a complete waste of time and space. We are here for the science - not for some vague measure of glory. 

Positioning of authors is debated everywhere, it seems. My position is that the position is absolutely uninteresting - every author of a paper might have done similar work, and then the ordering becomes a mess to produce, possibly with quarrels about the position in line as a result. I detest such a system - it's degrading to all. I advocate strict alphabetical ordering - the only NON-ordering! - and that the main author - if there is one - gets to take the "corresponding" author role. Any other system is impossible to detect from one given paper.

First author is the author involved mainly in carrying out research work, and it is not necessary that original idea of doing that work is also from him/ her.

Sometimes first two authors are considered equal in carrying out the research.

However, the author who guides all authors in planning a research work and who may provide his/ her lab, lab facilities and other requirements is the Corresponding author.

Corresponding author is the most important author in a research article. Research work is mostly done collectively by a group of researchers comprising graduate students, postdocs, research associate, technician, collaborators and people from other labs under the main guidance of one person who is the Corresponding author.

This is the reason that the research journal where the work is submitted makes contact with the corresponding author for correspondence, corrections, proof reading, and accepting, rejecting or accepting with certain conditions.

The published work will be considered as belonging to Corresponding author group. Sometimes there might be two or even more corresponding authors in a research work.   

 In my own field (history of science) I don't know of too many papers that have more than two  authors and so my answer will be limited in its applicability. But I know that some publications choose to list their authors alphabetically no matter what, and in such cases I'd say the designation of corresponding author is of value--as much I'd say of being the first author.

hello,

There is very simple to understand. First author is the person who makes largest contribution in the research.The most important one. Corresponding author is the person who takes responsibility of answering all queries. So automatically first author can easily be a corresponding author, but it isdefinitely NOT that corresponding author should be someone else.

Hi,

In various research fields being the first author does not mean that one is the most important author. This is a matter of decision between team members, and collaborating author. There are fields , such as mathematics, that the order of authors is alphabetical. Sometimes a PhD student writes an article and collaborates with his adviser who puts his name as a first author, even though the student was the one who did most of the work.

Hi,

It is logical that, person who did most of the work could be in good position to answer queries about the work. He/she could therefore stands as the corresponding author in this context, if the role of corresponding author is to handle submission and queries from reviewers. However in the presence of a senior scientist who could equally handle that, the team is left with two choices.

Normally, the person who contributed most to the work including writing of the manuscript/drafting the paper is determined as the first author and he should be able to answer if there is any query after the paper is published. By the relative overall contributions to the manuscript, the sequence of authors could be determined.

The first author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the research student has not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The first author then becomes the corresponding author but should the student be the first author? Some supervisors put their students first, others put their own names first. In some cases, the researcher is the first author, but the supervisor becomes the corresponding author as he thinks that he could better respond.

Normally, the person who contributed most to the work including writing of the manuscript/drafting the paper is determined as the first author and he should be able to answer if there is any query after the paper is published. By the relative overall contributions to the manuscript, the sequence of authors could be determined.

The first author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the research student has not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The first author then becomes the corresponding author but should the student be the first author? Some supervisors put their students first, others put their own names first. In some cases, the researcher is the first author, but the supervisor becomes the corresponding author as he thinks that he could better respond.

The first author is usually conducting most of the practical part ,gathering data and analyziing these data with the co others.He writes with the coothers the first and the final draft of the manuscript.He sometimes can be the corresponding author.The corresponding author might edit the manscript to fit the journal style.He makes communication with specific journal for publication .He is responsible about correcting the asked comments and responsible about paying the fees needed for publication.The value depends on the institutes for both authors .It is sometimes equal in right and some times first author may gain more points than the corresponding author .

The first author writes most of the paper from data collection, analysis, and writing editing, while the corresponding author only corresponds the publishing journal and submit the article and follow untill the article is published after correction if required.

The first author frequently has a privileged position within the group of authors of an investigation, but the author for correspondence does not always have to coincide with this first author. The author for correspondence is a member of the group of authors that has knowledge and skills that allow other authors to give him the right and duty to deal with the questions and suggestions that the research they conducted may generate.

I believe that first author is usually carried out most of the practical part of the research and must be the correspondence author too.

First author is the person who makes largest contribution in the research.The most important one. Corresponding author is the person who takes responsibility of answering all queries. So automatically first author can easily be a corresponding author, but it isdefinitely NOT that corresponding author should be someone else.

Researches define first "author" as an individual who has made:

-‘Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.

On the other hand The ‘corresponding author’ nominated as being:

-Responsible for the manuscript as it moves through the entire publication process.

So it is clear that first author is the person who makes larger contribution to the particular article or research paper.

The first author writes the paper.

You may all be wrong, actually. :-) As there is no *strict* rule defined, and as there are as many customs as there are ordering preferences, there will never be a common rule implemented by every one. Over and out.

Unfortunately, placing the supervisor's name as the first and corresponding author in most universities in Iran is considered mandatory and surprisingly, It is the student who conducts the whole tests, writes the paper, edits it and even submits it to the journals. I agree with professor Michael Patriksson in this regard.

First author and all corresponding authors value is same. For example paper has 5 authors indicate, each contributions are 20%. Many authors are not beneficial for main author.

Agreed with Hanna M. Madanat

You seem to think that there is one uniform rule for the ordering of authors, but if you look at papers widely (beyond your back yard) you will find that there are many variations: some use a strict alphabetical ordering, others have a variation with a first author and the remaining authors listed alphabetically, and yet again there are versions where the one who provided the funds is last, and the variations do not stop there. The debate was over a long time ago - some disciplines/societies/journals have one rule, other ones have something else entirely. Instead of trying to force a principle that you like, just publish good papers - that's it! :-)