Vijaya Kittu Manda Good question. In general, the Editor will arrange the articles within a journal issue from what he/she perceives to be the most interesting down to the least interesting to the readers. Naturally, this perception is a rough estimate. In addition, any two articles which deal with a similar theme will be grouped together, to encourage readers to read the article before or the article after the one they are really interested in. Finally, any articles coming back very late from the referees may be added in at the end of the issue, so as not to impact too much on the existing index and the editorial. So as a reader, do not pay too much attention to the position in the issue.

By my experience, they are either by order of presentation in each category or alphabetical by first author's last name.

I don't think there is a any value implied by the order of listing.

I would say that if there is a survey paper published in a journal issue, then it is often placed first, as it is expected to have a larger audience - and it will also be described on the front page as such. For the rest of the issue, there are several possibilities: either the papers are grouped - roughly - by topic; or they are ordered based on the date in which the journal type-setting was done, and corrected by the authors.

Let me state my position respecting the publication order of my research. I for one do not give one damned about what publishers think. Heck, I do not even care what the reviewers think. I publish my material as I please, and most specifically for the express purpose of pleasing me.

The proceedings are often divided into thematic sections. Within each section papers go in an alphabetic order (by the author's family names). It may vary, however.

William: do you have your own printing house? :-)

Michael, have you not seen? Everybody has now their own printing press, and there are dozens of vendors who are dying to carry your "print" (I'd like to use a four-letter expletive) for free. What do you think RG is? Academia.edu? JSTOR (though, they have not let me in)? The fact is, publishing is the absolute bottom capitalisation-requirement business to be in. Everything else costs more.

Let me extend this point, just a little bit.

Save for my design of a machine that has a zygote, and that I have published the first paper that gives implementation details and source code for a computer virus, and some other sundry ignobilities, there is no reason in general that any other person in the world should or would care about me. I am just another person, living today; why would any one else care?

I have publications, and getting readership figures for some are perhaps impossible; newspapers stories, magazine stories, how do you count?

What I do know is that full-reads for my journal paper are greater for the post on RG, as compared to the count given by the current publisher; I think that Biological Theory got caught up in the MIT-scandal and so the publisher has been replaced by KLI.

Indeed, this fact speaks volumes to me. The journal publishers are already dead; they just can't smell the stink, yet. The Internet is now the publisher of choice.

If I hold any computer scientist up for praise, it is Ted Nelson. He got it right respecting the means that information comes to the top of reference.