One can only become an author by delivering an authentic intellectual contribution. This is beyond a mere technical support. Concerning the hierarchy between authors there are basically two scenarios: a) the article is the the result of team work, the outcomes, the methods had been discussed by the group of authors. The alphabetical order suits this case. b) the main reasoning has been done by one person; the others have only contributed additional elements. I would see the main contributor as first author. For me it is abusive when an institutional hierarchy determines the order of authors.

An author is someone who has an authority over his intellectual property like books, research, articles etc. thank  you

Several organizations set forth criteria for authorship on a scholarly article, but the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is likely the most used. This article from their website delineates the criteria for authorship: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Author order is often determined by contribution to the work, i.e., the person who contributes the most is listed first and so forth. However, it is also common for the PI to be listed in the last author position.

ICMJE defines it at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two

@Metin Akgun, we are familiar that and author is someone who has made intellectual contribution.  It could be that A had an idea to research, and began to write a simple research proposal, outlining how s/he would do the data collection, the data needed, and how it would be analysed.  Perhaps A has 3 research questions or hypotheses.  Another person, B could add intellectual contribution in the form of another research question that would improve the study.  C and D could be experts in their fields who have done much research, and they are willing to read the manuscript and improve it.  The order of authors would be A, followed by B, C and D.  Do you agree?

The coming into being of the notion of "author" constitutes the privileged moment of individualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy and  the sciences. Writing has become linked to sacrifice, even to the sacrifice of life. Notion of writing seems to transpose the empirical characteristics of the author into a transcendental anonymity. But the author function is not a pure and simple reconstruction made  secondhand from a text given as inert material.

Dear Metin:

In the Humanities, the single author is valued as a writer who is an inventor, a promoter of new ideas, and/or as a critic of existing ideas. There is always in the author a critical vein that places her or him within a certain set of proposals. Authors challenge other authors, and are in perpetual debate because of our awareness that we think and write with others. There are no solitary authors. Literature is a great conversation with authors present and past, who seek a moment of individuality through each one's styles and ideas. Many have proclaimed "the death of the author" —for example, Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault— within the context of "appropriation": the most recent literature often installs itself in a previous work to comment from within the text of another. The author has become a "critic from within" adopting a more philosophical stance by posing questions like "Is there anything new in literature?" Newness is inevitable, but it must be constantly questioned. In the field of literature, authors seldom write a text together, and, usually we prepare anthologies of the work of others under a single topic. In her Crimes of Writing, Susan Stewart has studied the rise of the author's name and signature as an assumption of responsibility of what is written, and as a sign of identity. Honesty as to the provenance of a text has evolved into copyright laws that force authors to maintain full intellectual honesty as to the authenticity of our work. 

Best regards, Lilliana

75

Aigri-vin – homme de lettres.

Thank you for the clarifying answers but there remains too many problems defining the authors, their orders and evaluating author's contribution on the papers; i.e. what about multi center studies or equal contribution of two authors?

Dear Metin, maybe there are differences concerning the incredible freedom of literary authors —who can invent, say whatever, omit sources, and the like, and this is expected from us— and the strict expectations we have concerning "scientific" writing in general. Very few literary authors work with "co-authors", contrary to the vast majority of scientific authors who come together, each responsible for a specific task, in their collective path toward completing a paper. Style in scientific research is formal and lacking in everything that is attractive in literature: almost no objectives, no lateral personal comments, lack of what people who hate literature call "ornamental writing" but which actually defines the style of a literary author... In sum, you are right to make the difference. People should be free to asume authorship as necessary for the project at hand. I believe the important thing is to use the proper "decorum" of each type of writing, that is, of course, dependent on the type of project. There are basically no restrictions for literary authors —no work more hard to read than James Joyce's Finnegans Wake—, and many restrictions for scientific writing and scientific authors. It bears noting that clumsy, unnecessarily obscure prose, neither literary nor scientific, is good for no one. The idea of writing is, after all, to be understood. Besides that, to each its own.

Best regards, Lilliana

Bonjour.

Les critères pour déterminer qui sont les auteurs et l'ordre dans lesquels ils apparaissent dans une publication est extrêmement variable. Il peut dépendre des usages dans les disciplines concernées. Par exemple, dans les articles en médecine ou en physique, le nom du directeur de laboratoire est souvent placé en dernier… alors que en sciences humaines, il peut être en premier. Mais ces règles ne sont pas strictes. Elles peuvent alors dépendre de la revue auquel l'article est adressé. Un nom "connu" ou "prestigieux" peut alors, en étant placé en premier, contribuer au prestige de la revue elle-même. Et puis, il y a des questions d'éthique qui peuvent aussi avoir leurs influences. Tel directeur de recherche souhaitera toujours que son nom soit placé en premier, même si ce n'est pas lui qui a fait le plus gros du travail - mais il peut avoir besoin de publications pour son curriculum ; alors que pour d'autres directeurs, il s'agira de valoriser le travail des doctorants dont les noms seront alors placés en premier. On voit bien que, au-delà de la présentation habituelle de la science comme résultat d'un travail d'équipe, d'autres enjeux (sociaux, carrière, réputation) sont à considérer…

All commented about  ICMJE and intellectual contribution is correct.  Who is a first author and who are co-authors, is also important.

The first author normally is responsible for the study while it was taken place and/or supervised the data analysis, interpretation and presentation of the data. The first author is responsible for putting the manuscript together (¨the first draft¨) and potentially submitting (writing the story).  

Co-author´s may support data analysis and after the initial draft is written by the first author, help review the manuscript.   Co-authors are responsible for the idea/s conveyed in the draft  and should be able to defend them or negate them (reject co-authorship before submitting). 

Based on this a shared first authorship would involve first authors who wrote the overarching ¨first draft¨ of the manuscript. That is they developed the manuscript for telling the story/idea together. Here I believe the main challenge is determining what is the idea, vs what is the mechanical aspect of writing (it is not enough to just write what was done, things must be told in a way that it conveys to the big picture/tone in the manuscript).

A first author leads the main idea/s and directs it in the manuscript. A mentor supervises this process (lending their expertise-particularly to the idea). Co-authors review and suggest after the initial manuscript are set in place for the idea (they can also help in data analysis, or writing parts of the paper that are more mechanical like methods). *[this is an opinion]* 

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-to-get-published-1-preparing-your-manuscript

Article Initial Steps in Writing and Submitting a Research Paper

I teach short courses on technical writing and have dealt with the question many times.  The simple answer that avoids any issues of politics with your organization or between your organization and outsiders who may have contributed to the work is anyone who contributes any words, graphs, pictures, etc. can be considered a co-author.  Anyone with whom the co-authors have had discussions, made suggestions, helped gather data, made editing suggestions, etc., should be recognized in the acknowledgements section.  Authors are people who can point to something in the article and say "I wrote, drew, created, etc. THAT."  However, as I said at the beginning of this answer, my answer side steps the issue of politics.  Here one is sometimes "obligated" to add an author because that person's was the contact at a company that contracted the author's company to do the work.  Now the contact person wants to have his/her name on the article when, in fact, that person contributed no content to the article.  That's how I see it.

Now if your question has to do with ranking first, second, etc. author's that is an issue for which I have not concrete answer.  In my experience when there are going to be more than one paper from the group, we rotate first-authorship.

One can only become an author by delivering an authentic intellectual contribution. This is beyond a mere technical support. Concerning the hierarchy between authors there are basically two scenarios: a) the article is the the result of team work, the outcomes, the methods had been discussed by the group of authors. The alphabetical order suits this case. b) the main reasoning has been done by one person; the others have only contributed additional elements. I would see the main contributor as first author. For me it is abusive when an institutional hierarchy determines the order of authors.

Some universities, including mine, give importance to corresponding author like a first author. According to me, the first author should be responsible from the whole manuscript. Is it reasonable to rank pari passu the first auhor and corresponding author?

Author(s) can be simply described as someone or group of experts that are responsible for the creation of an intellectuall contents that are duly documented in definite format(s). When uch person(s) is quoted, reference must be made to them, giving basic bibliographic details of such work(s).  

An author is the person who,. metaphorically speaking, is most willing to stand on a mountain and sing naked before the world. An author is the person who is willing to reveal the most of themselves, who thinks most independently, and who is willing to share their deepest thoughts and insights with the world. An author is the person who is willing to proclaim the truth, no matter how few others are willing to hear it, and an author is the one who, afraid or not, is willing to think for themselves and put their original ideas out there before a very judgmental world.

Cheers

According to the ICMJE guidelines, authorship is based on the following criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In a research paper with multiple authors, one author is designated as the lead author. Heor she should meet the following criteria:

• Takes the overall responsibility for the manuscript
• Is usually the corresponding author i.e. someone who takes charge of getting approval from all the other authors and communicating with the journal
• Is typically the first author of the paper, which means he/she has made the most significant contribution to the research, and has also written and edited a major part of the work

Anyone else who fulfills the authorship criteria can qualify to be a co-author of the paper.