Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to the research and the sequence of authors should be determined by the relative overall contributions to the manuscript.There are two positions that count, the first author and the last author. Attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when one is young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As one’s career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from one’s Unit, he/she is the main person responsible for its contents, and a younger colleague has made major contributions to the paper, hence he/she is designated as the first author. The senior author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the young researchers have not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The senior author then becomes the corresponding author, but should the student be the first author. (from attached document).

Hello Fazla Rabbi Mashrur

That totally depends on the discipline of your research. For example in the engineering discipline, (especially in computer science engineering), generally speaking, contribution level goes from the who contributed the most to the least: first(most contribution), second, third, fourth.... last author (least contribution).

This is also one of the major drawback of using H-index and RG Score as an author level metric as it doesn't take into consideration the sequence of author names while the same being an important information in fields like computer science engineering.

Best regards.

I would say the notion of being the first author is relevant in the following circumstance:

1. When such condition is required by your sponsor

2. when the article in question is (primarily) an output of your own work

3. as a graduate student and the manuscript in question is from your graduate studies. In this case, it might be a requirement for you to graduate.

That said, the whole idea is to give due honor.

Artur Braun this exactly characterizes the situation in our field of research (chemistry) as well. We always list those people as co-authors of our papers who contribute routine, but indispensable data / measurements. They are normally listed somewhere between the first author and the corresponding author.

There are some problems with authorship. For example, a specialist technician who collects material, does he deserve this status? Does the author want to be responsible for part of their research? Should the editorial Board be responsible for the correct placement of co-authors? These and other issues are often discussed.

The research area significantly affects the rating of authors in the article list. The country where information is collected and the creation is written also plays an important role. Most articles indicate the author who has done more work. In China, for example, co-authorship is not shared by several people, and this principle is called " equal authorship "or the available words"equal authorship".

It happens that all authors participate equally in the creation of an article. In Western countries, older writers are the last to be listed. They have a lot of experience and minimal working time. Such specialists do not have time to review the information in detail and develop the article. They are qualified, professional, and therefore occupy a place at the end of the list. In other countries, invited participants are in the last places.

Each of the authors makes unequal contributions to scientific work. Monographs usually indicate what exactly each scientist created, his section, and other merits in this project, but this is not the way in scientific research. Some authors believe that their significance and contribution is determined by the order of initials in the list. This is considered the main beginning of the dispute about the list of co-authors.

There are several points that indicate which of the applicants can not be the second author:

The participant who is the sponsor of the publication. For example, a research Professor received a prize and distributed it among subordinates working on the creation, with the requirement that his initials be listed as the reviewer. To do this, you must first complete the article.

People who completed the publication's technical tasks. They need to Express gratitude, no more.

Authors who sought help from third parties. This applies to translation.

Each scientist chooses for himself at what stage of research it is possible and necessary to find co-authors for their work. As a rule, novice scientists who are just getting involved in scientific research in order to better understand the process of writing and publishing an article, carry their ideas to more experienced colleagues who have both publication experience and at least some scientific weight. In this regard, the young researcher can consider his co-authors as a springboard for making his ideas available to the scientific community.

But what a surprise it may be when an experienced scientist does not spend time on the design of the work and requires (including for the purpose of training and acquiring skills and practice of publishing activity for a novice) to perform all the work on the preparation and design of the publication personally from a graduate student or student.

However, sometimes students write so indistinctly that editing each sentence several times is just a pointless waste of time, especially since there are many such students, and they all want to participate in the conference (points depend on this, which in turn depends on the scholarship), and at the same time put forward their interesting ideas that should not be lost.

Well, the main stumbling block for such beginners may be checking for anti-plagiarism. Sometimes almost the entire text is borrowed from somewhere. And to get around anti-plagiarism, students simply enter their text into Google translator, translate it into a foreign language, and then back into Russian. And inspired by his idea, the student brings the co-author a text that is absolutely unreadable due to the fact that the reverse translation into Russian from a foreign language completely turns the text into a set of words similar to the description of goods on Ali-Express.

A text in which each word individually has meaning, and all together is a fierce gibberish. In this case, just read the first sentences aloud, and the student understands that the trick will not work. After all, you should at least read your texts before sending them, not edit them carefully. This was enough for the student to understand his mistake and correct the text himself.

There are, of course, students who have great difficulties in compiling the theses of their reports, although the publication itself has a rational grain hidden in a completely unreadable text. In this case, it is easier and faster for the mentor to correct the text and send it to the press, provided that the publication is not an important milestone for the student, and the student was sent to storm the scientific horizon.

For such a student, only the idea of publication and the presence of a text that is more or less close to the scientific style, even if it has a high percentage of plagiarism, is enough. In such cases, in order not to waste time and not to torment the student, the mentor, of course, if it is not a matter of principle, it is easier and faster for 10-15 minutes to make the text sane, especially if the deadline for sending the publication to the conference is burning, and there are many such students, because the conference is free.

At the same time, of course, students are co-authors, and they own all the rights to publish. There are also cases when a student gives an interesting idea, or their own development, which the teacher can describe in a publication, applying it in their work in their scientific field, transforming its application in the right way for themselves. But as a rule, the teacher himself needs to identify the ideas of such students, and involve them in joint publications, making a lot of effort for this.

Sometimes young people in the departments, which are dominated by venerable and experienced professors and doctors of science, are in a special position. The Department conducts active scientific work in a variety of areas, which is supervised by the head of the Department, distributing the master plan, ideas for publications, which are entirely carried out by young people.

Fully cover all the details of the scientific work of the Department. the Department itself does not have time, so there are specially trained people who give, as they say, the country coal. This may be one or two people who are responsible for preparing the layout of a large manual or collection that corresponds to the specifics of the Department, regardless of the scientific interests of those who are directly working on it due to the circumstances.

The party said "it is necessary", the Komsomol replied - "there is". I have not worked on this topic – nothing, there is an opportunity to improve your skills and work. At the same time, the lion's share is performed by young people, the entire text is created and all edits are made exclusively by young teachers, of course, who are able to work with a computer on "you". After all, some famous scientists of the older generation can be with a computer on "you", and at the same time feel good, either due to past achievements, or due to proximity to key figures in the Department, or due to high organizational abilities, as for example, in the case of an authoritative head of the Department.

At the same time, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the Department replenishes the Fund of its publications, except that only one or two people do it, killing all their time, and all the older generation of the Department are co-authors, some of whom have never seen the layout of the publication, and do not even know what it will be about. But-you can't get the words out of the song, the older generation also needs publications, even if they are no longer engaged in science for many years, and reprint all their old collections in new editions. But nevertheless, the General work of the Department and the specifics of teaching require the rapid appearance of new materials for students.

Even worse, when the layout of the publication comes across the eyes of a person who has experience in teaching, but has completely lost touch with the youth for whom, in fact, this manual is created. In this case, whether for a tick, or for the image of the ebullient activity and involvement in the work on the manual, there is simply some kind of stalemate, when the "co-author" makes the most ridiculous proposals, not motivated by anything and not giving the material any development. In this case, the edits relate to entire sections, and the young "workhorse", harnessed to write this is not a small manual, adjusts to the absurd "wishlist" of their supposedly experienced co-authors, who instead of adequate edits and suggestions scribble printed material, bringing chaos and absurdity, thereby trying to create the appearance of improving the work.

Workhorses usually "hack" in scientific work, but do not want to show that the advice of the "co-author" is complete profanation, and do a lot of unnecessary work just out of politeness and not wanting to conflict with the older generation on such an issue. Arguing, as a rule, is useless, deadlines are burning, a concerned "co-author" also wants to be involved, but in the topic "does not fumble", offers nonsense, but has a special position in the Department due to age and personal proximity to the head of the Department, so it is easier to do a lot of useless work and forget about it, combing and smoothing where you can all these unthinkable "innovations" and stupid "edits".

Sometimes such" works "are supplemented as co-authors by "social workers" engaged in some trade Union work, purely out of solidarity to the" workhorses " adding some useful tables, which, of course, they did not themselves compose, but which also do not prevent, so to speak, to contribute to the publication. But public work requires a lot of time, although the people on it are usually adequate, young themselves and are in normal relations with the young "clerks" of Cathedral works, they do not bring any harm to the publication, so their presence "for the company", usually also does not cause questions. Especially since the tables were added to the app, so well and good. The work was done!

Such co-authors are "parasites", the best thing is if they are simply written into a text that they do not know about, and the worst – if they try to edit this work, either poorly thinking about the topic, or not thinking at all, but based on confidence in their experience and skill, they demand to implement their most useless and even harmful edits.

There is a case when one of the scientists conducts active scientific work in a direction similar to the direction in which the second scientist has already defended himself, but at the same time "slowed down" in scientific research and has not been published for some time.

Relations between scientists can be friendly, and at the same time, someone who constantly "gushes" scientific ideas, already becomes sorry for the time and money for the next major publication. In this case, there may be a useful symbiosis between scientists – one pays for the publication in full, but has an indirect relationship to it. The second scientist finds where and what to publish, and does it for free, at the expense of the second "co-author". That is, they get a way to translate their new ideas into publications by adding a sponsor, although the sponsor is usually an adequate scientist and has publications on the same topic, or at least the work that is given to the co-author, who performs all the work on creating and "embedding" the publication in a journal or in a collective monograph.

From this no one suffers and everyone is happy – a material that has long lain idle and was waiting for inspiration from the sponsor, gets what is called "jet", finds a new life and embodied in venerable journals and books, benefit from this by everyone from the sponsor, provided their long-forgotten material, and ending with the performer, who scored properly, as at this stage it is fashionable in science at the moment, and in accordance with all the requirements for publication.

At the same time, even borrowing of the sponsor's material may be minimal. The sponsor knows the potential of their co-author and does not bother with edits – this is good, nothing makes it difficult to work, the material is processed as required by the moment, and a new scientific study of the active co-author, who prepares all the material, is published.

If desired, the sponsor can correct something in the final proofreading, as a rule, the material only benefits from this, due to new speech turns or sharpening the sharpness of the proposed ideas. In fact, everything wins here – a dead weight waiting to be brought to life and published, refracted in a new scientific study, thereby bringing mutual benefit. The sponsor, as a rule, gives good material that can be used as a basis, and the second co-author, having a high speed of execution, by inertia, in line with the research being carried out at the time, implements all the useful ideas in the right way for himself. Everyone likes everything, this is a good and fast type of interaction.

the fact is that initially, in the "Professor-student" tandem, there is an inequality of status and an ambiguous approach to scientific work. When one tries something, wants to, but like a dog, he understands, but can't tell. And all the new things that are proposed seem to work, but the author of the idea is completely unable to explain how and why, and at the expense of what. And the second-a coryphae, has knowledge and authority in this field, but instead of showing how to correctly and properly, shows only the flaws and flaws, looking for more and more imperfections in the description of this work.

Thus, before the publication reaches its final embodiment, there is a transformation from an arrogant student or graduate student to a person who can clearly Express his point of view, do it not in a trivial way and in accordance with the rules of scientific research.

Different luminaries have their own principles in the education of young people, but if you get to the authoritarian type of a wise scientist who is not just sitting in high positions, then in many iterations of work on the text, you can eventually get some useful intellectual product. But all this will be done by a student or graduate student, each time breaking off their self-esteem about a thousand "shoals", which will be mercilessly pointed out by the corypheus.

However, at the same time, the cost of efforts made on both sides will be quite high. Well, how can you become a luminary, except through continuous interaction with the interested luminary? Even if he never praises, and the measure of readiness is only the absence of joints? Well, having already become a more or less independent scientist with experience in scientific research, and understanding that certain fragments have already been mutually worked on, or just out of respect for the corypheus, new articles on relatively similar topics may just mention the name of the corypheus, as a co-author, as a tribute to the work that was done before, even if in a different way, but in line with the General theme, why not?!

This is possible already at the stage when there is sufficient publication maturity of the person working with the luminary. But of course, not in the case when a raw and completely illiterate article tries to be published with the name of the corypheus, so that it passes the editor at the expense of the corypheus ' regalia. This number will not pass, because it is guaranteed to be outraged both the editor and the luminary, as soon as he finds out about it. And the corypheus already inspires the student in advance that such a situation, if God forbid, will come true, then the storm will not pass. That is, the corypheus does not leave such a publication option under his last name in advance. As a rule, luminaries already have a lot of publications and are not going to be shamed by the initiative of their new co-author, who did not inform them and published nonsense.

There is an experience of positive co-authorship of scientists from different scientific fields in which they are major recognized scientists. Due to a certain set of circumstances, publications of a narrow scientific orientation may be in demand, which may be conducted by scientists who understand this topic well and who simply need to be involved in the work.

Or it may turn out that scientists from different scientific fields (or scientific schools, or directions) jointly research and create a certain intellectual product or material, which then each of them can apply in their scientific field.

For example, a useful experience of joint publications for me is that I have developed a way to informatize linear regression analysis. In other words, I came up with and described an algorithm for using Microsoft Excel to perform this type of analysis. What kind of table to make, what formulas to make, in order to literally paint on your fingers the whole essence and technique of using this method: moreover, these tables made it absolutely transparent to understand – what, why and why is taken and how it is processed, what the result is and how it can be interpreted. Everything is easy! The method becomes clear to understand, especially since it is a good method and can be applied to anything. As a result, this method turned out to be applicable to various scientific fields, and I developed its application on the basis of theses given to me by my colleague, under whose guidance students carefully accumulated and processed these very measured data.

Then it turned out that this method can go beyond the scope of the research carried out in the diploma papers, and can be applied in other cases. This means that my colleague and I have already separately transformed the prepared material in our field of research interests.I dragged it into the methodology of teaching physics (like a computer workshop in a textbook), and it also fit in well there, and my colleague used it for methodological instructions for students studying materials science. At the same time, we both entered each other (our surnames) as co-authors who gave the idea of applying this method in two different publications with different names. These are "Formation of professional competence of future engineers in the process of mastering linear regression analysis of the results of experimental tests of physical objects", and "Processing the results of mechanical tests of materials by linear regression analysis".

As experience shows, this is a favorable type of co-authorship, when the jointly developed material is useful to both co-authors who work in different scientific fields, and is used by each co-author in their own way, while we both kept the co-author's last name, out of respect for the really important and well-done work.

Co-authorship of a young scientist in a scientific article with his supervisor is a good start to a young researcher's scientific career. It will not be easy for the supervisor to work with his young co-author at first, but the task of the supervisor is to teach his ward to write good articles.

And already experienced scientists engaged in related work, but from different subject areas, can join forces and complement each other well and produce a significant interdisciplinary scientific work.

So the choice is yours – with whom and for what purpose to become a co-author of a scientific paper.

There are several approaches to determining the sequence of authors of a scientific article.

The easiest way is to specify the authors in alphabetical order, focusing on the first letter of their last names: this method is used if the contribution of the authors is equal.

The second method is to specify the authors in descending order of their contribution to the work.

According to the third approach, the first and last authors of the article are indicated: this method is used for works of author groups consisting of a large number of participants.

The fourth method prescribes to specify the authors according to their contribution to the article, expressed as a percentage. The percentage of authorship participation is also measured using various systems.

The status of the first author is of great importance for scientists, and the author of the article is one of the most important parameters used in bibliographic search. Usually, when publishing an article, its authorship is indicated based on the manuscript sent to the publication.

The procedure for specifying authors in the submitted materials is determined by the scientists themselves who worked on the article. If there is a conflict of interest when determining the first author, the publisher makes the decision about the sequence of authors.

One curious case from my life, connected with the co-authorship of a scientific article. A friend of mine wrote an article based on the results of his field research and showed it to the head of his scientific laboratory. He liked the article and decided to help publish it. The first author he wrote himself, and the one who conducted the research and wrote the article was in second place among the authors. At the same time, the decision of the scientific Council of the scientific Institute was necessary, and the head of the laboratory took the article to the scientific and technical Council. The Chairman of this Council reviewed the articles, and gave a recommendation for publication only if the first author of the article wrote it. The head of the laboratory agreed. And thanks to this, the author who wrote the article was third in the list of co-authors. They chose a significant scientific journal, but this journal was published by leading scientists. Therefore, the article was shown to the Director of this scientific Institute. I liked the article. The Director wanted to sponsor the publication himself and signed himself as the first author. I looked, it turned out to be 4 co-authors. And he thought, that 4 author is obtained many and decided to remove the last. Thus, the scientist who wrote the articles was not among the co-authors. The article was published with three authors, including the author himself. After seeing the article, he became ill and went to the hospital with a heart condition.lace among the authors. At the same time, the decision of the scientific Council of the scientific Institute was necessary, and the head of the laboratory took the article to the scientific and technical Council. The Chairman of this Council reviewed the articles, and gave a recommendation for publication only if the first author of the article wrote it. The head of the laboratory agreed. And thanks to this, the author who wrote the article was third in the list of co-authors. They chose a significant scientific journal, but this journal was published by leading scientists. Therefore, the article was shown to the Director of this scientific Institute. I liked the article. The Director wanted to sponsor the publication himself and signed himself as the first author. I looked, it turned out to be 4 co-authors. And he thought, that 4 author is obtained many and decided to remove the last. Thus, the scientist who wrote the articles was not among the co-authors. The article was published with three authors, including the author himself. After seeing the article, he became ill and went to the hospital with a heart condition.

Thanks for your time and great answer Zagir Ataev Artur Braun

As the contributions in this thread are documenting, there are obviously some highly emotional aspects concerning author's lists...

In my field, typically the first author is the one who did most of the work and I never really understood the discussions about the ranking after place 1. I am always happy if everyone is included who contributed with anything and alphabetical order is ok for me.

The world would probably better if we could put away our vanity more often.

thanks a lot Erik Strub for sharing your thought.

Who involved directly and done the most of the work for the particular research is the most eligible to become the first author of the article though sometimes it is not happened in many lab due to some unforseen reasons.

In my opinion the importance of the sequence of authorship is best related to taking full responsibility for the integrity of the scientific work and its description in this specific article. The first author has the highest responsibility (ranked with a 5), followed by the second and last authors (ranked with a 2) when all other co-authors are ranked with a 1. The first authorship can be shared. When publishing articles the scientific integrity overrules other aspects of doing research. When doing research ethical considerations overrule scientific ones.

Fazla Rabbi Mashrur for our field of research (chemistry) I fully agree with Erik Strub. In all our publication the first author (normally a PhD student or post-doc) is the one which did most of the work. As the corresponding author I am normally listed in last place.

I agree that it may vary depending on the field of science. I am working in pharmacogenetics and then no one can claim to have made the primary contribution. Therefore, I refer to the responsibilities for the scientific integrity of the paper.

Anton J M Loonen agreed. In our field of research (synthetic chemistry) it's very easy to determine who made the primary contribution. Our main goal is the synthesis of new chemical compounds, which are then characterized by various analytical and spectroscopic methods. Thus the student / co-worker who prepared the new compounds always makes the most important contribution.

Thanks a lot Frank T. Edelmann Anton J M Loonen Gourab Das

The first author to me has the same rating as a single authorship article... I rate it high on the same scale as SAP.

Abiola Olawale Ilori yes, at least in our field of research this is absolutely correct.

The first author may be a principal investigator as a PhD candidate or research project member with major or prominent research contribution. In fact the order of the authorship is based on the level of contribution i.e., with descending order scale of contribution.

Thanks Abiola Olawale Ilori Muhammad Ali

Usually for technical papers, one who has major contributions in designing the solution algorithm

Dear Fazla Rabbi Mashrur pleased find cited below an official definition of the terms "first author" and "corresponding author" as issued by the renowned publisher Elsevier.

https://scientific-publishing.webshop.elsevier.com/publication-recognition/what-corresponding-author/

Dear Frank T. Edelmann thanks a lot for your time. I will check that.

If the experiment is done by you, no matter who writes the paper it must be you who deserves the first authorship. Of course, you need to form a group of members who will help you to write the paper, they will get the co-authorship. I recommend you learn about research ethics.

Thanks, Sadib.

Dear Sadib Bin Kabir Thanks a lot.

Sadib Bin Kabir yes, this is exactly the way we handle this. The first author on our papers is always the student who did the major experiments, i.e. in our case the one who synthesized the new chemical compounds.

Frank T. Edelmann Thanks, sir.

The first author is the principal researcher who designed and carried out the major aspects of the work.

In academic publishing, the lead author, or first author, is the first named author of a publication such as a research article or audit. Academic authorship standards vary widely across disciplines. ... The list of trailing co-authors reflects, typically, diminishing contributions to the work reported in the manuscript.

Dear Fares Khalifa you are perfectly right! 👍 This is exactly how we handle authorship as well. The first author (named in first place) did the most important work, while the senior researcher (named in last place) is the corresponding author. The remaining co-authors are named in between with diminishing contributions.

It matters only to a classified category of authors; particularly, while citing as First Author et al., and so forth.

In the rest of the cases, it does not so significantly suppurate.

As per the usual tradition of scientific cultivation in the scientific world, the youngest contributor among all the coauthors in any research paper should be put first as the leading author

P. K. Karmakar at least in our field of research, the age of the contributors plays no role. However, often the first author is automatically the youngest contributor when the paper reports the results of a PhD thesis.

Dear Prof. Frank T. Edelmann :

Thanks a lot for your positive response to my reply.

In my opinion, young contributors have to travel miles and miles before they sleep.

In order to strengthen their journey into academics, they are usually cast as the leading authors towards their Ph. D. thesis related works proposed for compiling.

P. K. Karmakar in this point I fully agree with you. In our publications, PhD students are normally those who did the most important part of the work. They are always listed as first / leading authors on our papers.

Thanks a lot, Prof. Frank T. Edelmann, for agreeing with me on the fact that the young (Ph. D.) students should be kept as the first author

The usual matter of being in the first authorship remarkably helps the conversion process of a student into a faculty

I agree with Erik Strub

Regards

In the medical profession the most junior author who collects the data and prepares the initial draft of the manuscript is usually first author. The most senior author who (usually) conceptualized the project, supervises and acts as guarantor is often last.

However during the COVID-19 pandemic this trend has been reversed. Established senior authors have been first author on most of the high profile papers.

Rajkumar Rajendram I do not understand what COVID-19 has to do with the order of authors on research papers?

During the COVID-19 pandemic medical researchers were clamouring to publish hastily collected data that was often of poor quality. Whilst ostensibly this was to guide the management of a new disease, many saw this pandemic as an opportunity for instant recognition and fame. As a result journals were overwhelmed with manuscripts from senior authors that were essentially opinion pieces with data from a few patients.

It is the researcher which usually deals with the writing up, simulations and experiment.

The first author is the one who has worked the most on paper regardless of age or other parameters.

In general, the first authorship means that the article is written and belongs to the first author only. However, when we cite any article, the citation of that article is represented as a (name at al.) which indicates that there are more than two contributors to this research work. While the sole credit goes to the first author only.

In some groups an alphabetical order was used (in earlier times) ....

Guido J. Reiss in our field of research (chemistry), listing the authors in alphabetical order is uncommon and would also be quite unfair.

Tanvir Singh normally when an article is cited within the text of a paper, the corresponding author is named, e.g. "Singh et al."

I wonder what will happen if all the articles are counted only for the first author. I think it's going to be fun and there will be a lot of scores and number quotes that will be divided by 10 or more :)

Ouaïl Ouchetto this is just a theoretical consideration. Why should this be done? On Scopus or Google Scholar every author is given full credit.

Frank T. Edelmann , I agree with you. This is just theorical consideration.

Dear @ Frank T. Edelmann the corresponding author is the one who handle their manuscript write from the write up to send and till publication. While in the text of the manuscript we always cited the first author as the credit holder of particular article.

The first authorship is decided on the basis of the following criteria:

• Extraordinary contributions to the conception or design of the research work;
• Data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• A common practice is a juniormost and seniormost author appearing first and last, regardless of contributions in the paper; respectively.

P. K. Karmakar that's exactly how we handle this in our publications.

Thanks, Dear Prof Frank T. Edelmann. It is as per the universal norms. It is to be extensively obeyed.

yes absolutely correct the first author should have following qualities as mentioned by P. K. Karmakar

Thanks, dear Prof. Tanvir Singh, at this backdrop. Besides, it is also widely followed that the first author must be the originator of the research problem.

It is mostly his idea and he usually does most of the work.

The first author apparently looks like a flagship; but, actually, it may not be so

Dear Fazla Rabbi Mashrur for many more answers to this question please also check out this closely related thread:

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

Dear Frank T. Edelmann Thanks for sharing the related thread. I will check it.

Thank Fazla Rabbi M for opening this discussion. Things were cleared.

Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak at least in our field of research this is not quite right. It is true that the student who did most of the work is normally named as first author. However, the basic ideas for the work come form the supervisor / group leader who in the end is also the corresponding author.

Try to be the first author in your research paper initially and the last author finally

P. K. Karmakar very good answer!

Thanks, dear Prof. Frank T. Edelmann, if agreed well

Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to the research and the sequence of authors should be determined by the relative overall contributions to the manuscript.There are two positions that count, the first author and the last author. Attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when one is young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As one’s career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from one’s Unit, he/she is the main person responsible for its contents, and a younger colleague has made major contributions to the paper, hence he/she is designated as the first author. The senior author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the young researchers have not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The senior author then becomes the corresponding author, but should the student be the first author. (from attached document).

Muhammad Yahya Qureshi many thanks for sharing this very valuable reference. 👍

Welcome Frank T. Edelmann

Some additional information is is also available on an important attached concern without which the concept is not complete :-

1. Principal Investigator (PI) usually after the name has ** PI

2. Co-Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator (Co-PI/Co-I)

3. Faculty Participant

https://www.umass.edu/research/policy/pi-and-co-pi-roles-and-responsibilities

Traditionally, the last author position is reserved for the supervisor or principal investigator. As such, this person receives much of the credit when the research goes well and the flak when things go wrong.

Multiple “first” authors. Additional “first” authors can be noted by an asterisk or other symbol accompanied by an explanatory note. This practice is common in interdisciplinary studies; however, as we shall explain further below, the first name listed on a paper will still enjoy more visibility than any other “first” author. https://wordvice.com/journal-article-author-order/

Multiple “last” authors. Similar to recognizing several first authors, multiple last authors can be recognized via typographical symbols and footnotes. This practice arose as some journals wanted to increase accountability by requiring senior lab members to review all data and interpretations produced in their labs.

https://wordvice.com/journal-article-author-order/

For details please read attached PDFs

Many thanks for sharing documents.

Welcome Dr. Samarakoon Mudiyanselage Samantha Samarakoon

The public mentalities about authorship features vary from place to place, people to people, and so forth;

The international outlooks should remain the same in search of the absolute truth

The first author is to be treated as the "Engine (driver)" and the last author is the "Guard (curator)" in the active process of preparation of a research paper if compared to a running express train on the railway tracks

Well said P. K. Karmakar

P. K. Karmakar yes, that's a good comparison. We handle it the same way.

Dear Frank T. Edelmann and Fazla Rabbi Mashrur:

Thanks for liking my simple reply as a rough analogy with the situation comparatively

According to me, the first author means the person who did the most part of that work, generally.

Exceptions are always there.

Warm Regards,

PRC

Fazla Rabbi Mashrur fortunately in our field of research (synthetic chemistry) the decision "who did most of the work" is quite clear and straightforward. The first author is always the student who synthesized the new compounds.

There should not be any propensity and craziness after the first authorship in any research manuscript;

"Authorship" is often a locative indicator of "Designation" in most of the strange cases we globally encounter;

There are many "Research Supervisors", placed in the first authorship, but globally treated as "Research Scholars" on an apparent basis;

Conversely, there are many "Research Scholars", laid in the last authorship, but apparently and globally treated as "Research Supervisors".

The authorial sequence should go as per the relative overall contributions towards the finally published form

An infinite number of degrees of freedom exist around us to be engineered and materialized;

The first author in any of such investigations is the first person to actualize it

The greatest contribution of the first author.

There be no gray zone and no space for the exploitation of anybody in the process of the manuscript preparation

The truth is very easy to see; but, very tough to show.

The first author must be a strong devotee of truth illuminating all around.

First author is usually the student /researcher who has undertaken the research work. First author is often also referred as the presenting author. ... Corresponding author is usually the senior author who provides the intellectual input and designs and approves the protocols to be followed in the study.

First author may contribute the most to the paper. Also, it could be the person who provided a new idea that contributed to the strength of the methodology or the discussion and changes the theme of the paper; in this case, he/she did not actually work the most, but the idea or intellectual input he or she provided has greatly benefited the publication of the paper.

First authorship is like the head of the family, which carry all the responsibilities of all persons about their likes and dislikes.

Tanvir Singh this is actually not true in our field of research (chemistry). The "head of the family" is the corresponding author (supervisor / senior researcher).

I sometimes recognise (chemical cyrstallography) that a student (author) acts as the corresponding author and is also responsible for a reply concerning issues in experiments and discussion. This may lead to problems during the review process at a scientific level.

The first author of a research paper is like the pilot of an airbus resembling the paper