I advocate the use of strict alphabetical ordering of authors - that's the only true "non-ordering". I may have mentioned this before - as the topic has materialized before. And if possible, for clarity's sake, I think that journals should allow the principle to be spelt out explicitly, at least until the system changes such that all journals utilize this rule.

Placide Nduwayo I agree with you. However, if you read the answer given by Michael Patriksson he assumed that all the authors have contributed equally in the paper, in this case, alphabetical ordering of the authors surname is the best. But, unfortunately, it is very difficult nowadays to have a paper writing by two or more authors and all the authors contributed equally. Therefore, in my own view, the order of the authors in the paper suppose to be regarding their contributions in the research.

Hassan Mohammad , I agree with you, nowdays you can not contribute equaly to the same paper.

I have not assumed anything, Hassan - the portion that each one contributed is immaterial, as long as those who are named have done enough to merit the "author" status.

My point is exactly that it is the content of the paper that we should focus on, and not the authors. I see far too many thoughtless posts that argue for one rule or the other, including one that states that the coordinator (or lab head, or the one that got the project money) of the project should be the "last author". But because no journal will allow a team of authors to explicitly spell out the principle behind the ordering of the authors, the only sensible one *is* the alphabetical one - or even the reverse of that. We shoujld not focus on how the paper looks, but what is actually is written in it. Case closed.

The main idea is that the authors ordering is also decided in agreement by the team who worked on the paper. But it is strange and opportunistic when after several months the paper is submitted that a coauthor to return back and claim for alphabetic order.

The agreement should of course be spelt out before the writing project is started, such that everyone involved can accept whatever rule you will use.

It is exactily this Michael Patriksson except that in some case, after a first revision of the paper someone return back and claim alphatec order of the authors, maybe to hide that he did contribute nothing and that with alphabtic order it can not be seen.

Well, that confirms my point then; thank you for illustrating it.

As a conclusion to this discussion and in my own view. It is better for the authors to decide on the principle of the authors ordering, whether alphabetical or otherwise, and every author should agree with the decision.

Many thanks Mr Michael Patriksson and Hassan Mohammad for your warm responses, sometimes it is unfair, when you are a studend and you try to work hard and after 7 months that your results are published and the paper is under revision, someone who almost do nothing claim alphabetic order because his name arranges him and the name of that student comes at last position as if the student didn't do nothing. The question is: why he didn't claim alphatic order before submission of the paper and it is after the first revision of the paper he claims alphabetic order? It is unfair.

Indeed, decide the rule - whatever it is - and stick with it!

Yes, decide in advance, but convention in some disciplines is that senior person goes last.

Thank you @Andy, we have decided before submission of the paper and everyone was agree with the order, and after seven months the paper was submitted and already revised the first time, the guy that I don't cite the name cared about alphabetic order of authors, imagine after seven months and after the first revision. And do you know, that guy didn't contribte nothing, realy nothing, I understand that he care about alphabetic order. Shame on him.

I haven't really come across alphabetical ordering, first author has always been the person with the highest input on the paper.

Ikenna Chinazaekpere Ijeh: yes, in your group you can do that, while the typical system in our group is alphabetical. What matters much more than the ordering of authors is the actual writing process. I anticipate that there will be - in a few years time - a possibility to declare the rule for the ordering of authors at the end of the paper, but at an additional cost. Given the sometimes weird discussions in various threads on this issue I hope we can do that, so that we do not need to argue at RG about the positives or negatives about a given rule.

Michael Patriksson thank you very much for the insight.

Thank You @ Ikenna Chinazaekpere Ijeh for your support. It is wordth that the name of the main contributer on a paper comes in the firts position. If not it is a manner to hide who worked and who did not work on a paper, because for my case, there one author who realy didn't do nothing realy nothing and is this one who is caring the alphabetic order, and the guys who worked had on the paper we are at last postion. I am not supporting this while I am a PhD student who need to publish before the end of my thesis.

Normally, the individual who actually writes the paper may have played a major part in doing the work, and therefore, the convention is to put his/her name first in the order of authors. Similarly, it is also customary that the Head of the Department, if s/he has had some part in the work, should go as the last author. The order of remaining authors, if any, can be made depending upon their relative contributions.

In a scientific paper, only those who contributed substantially to the work should be listed as authors. A simple help in taking observation, analysis, or interpretation do not entail anybody for authorship. Instead, acknowledge their help in a proper way.

All authors should know that their names have been included as authors! Including names of persons as authors without their consent is unethical and may create problems.

I just hope this settles, probably with different results for different teams. Clearly, though, if you argue so much about the ordering of authors then you should either skip writing together, or get therapy. :-) You see: getting the content of the paper in perfect shape is a Million times more important than that silly ordering rule. You all know how you contributed anyway.

I have read elsewhere that a team of authors can keep a diary, in order to go back and see who contributed what. Another is to decide some aspects of the writing (distributing tasks, etc.) already at the start, and make sure it stays that way until the finishing line, unless EVERYONE agrees that a change is needed. That's a nice democratic system.