More and more frequently I discuss the issue of the ordering of authors with my co-authors. It would be interesting to hear how the reasoning goes among the population at RG, so please share your views!
Here are some links that I have found, discussing the question I am looking for an answer to. I still would like to hear how you people go about deciding the ordering - it IS an interesting question. :-)
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/publishing_addiction_science_chapter5.pdf
http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper.pdf
While speaking of the ordering, one aspect of this is illustrated by the world record in number of authors of a single paper, the world record now having passed the 3000 mark! (The first biggie I read about was in Nick Higham's excellent book on scientific writing, but then we were talking of a paper with about 450 authors.) Of course we are talking about big research labs' final reports on major discoveries (such as the discovery of the Higgs particle), but still, how does one in a realistic way defend ANY ordering of 3000 names?? Here is a report on the matter:
http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/
Main researcher conducting the research as leader - be first author, his associates be 2nd , 3rd and so on, among these senior person may be the last author, and 1st, last and / or experienced researcher may be the corresponding author. More important is that akk authors/co-authors must contribute significantly in research and also in developing / writing a paper, which will lead to earlier acceptance. In exceptional cases a researcher helping significantly in developing, analysing / interpretating and writing/editing can also be considered as co-author by the team.
I feel alphabetical order of author's name is the best. A reader should not be concerned with the main contributor of the paper but the main contribution of the paper itself.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals