You only have to take the first one, like: Miller, C. et al. (2015): Title...

 You can put in italics at the end of the paper what each author did as in X conceived of the work recruited the participants develop the data, why collected the data and analyze it Z wrote the first draft of the manuscript and completed all editorial requirements 

I would arrange them in order of contribution. First author is definitely the one that must have contributed more 

Unlike the days of the yore, lets say until about 40-50 years ago, we'd a culture of respect for the senior professor who has provided the concept, the underlying theory, method of approach and expected outcome, the order of author(s) used to be senior professor, and the agreed upon sequence by the contributing researchers.

The approach has changed over the years, the senior professor's contribution these days is not to that extent, the young researchers conduct research and contribute their time based on many factors: their understanding of the approach and the expected outcome, contributed time based on obligations at work and home, and other factors.

Correspondingly, the current trend is first author is generally who has contributed the most, then an order generally agreed upon by the researchers and the last is normally a senior professor (better known), whose name generally authenticates the research and eases the cycle of publication. 

Essentially all authors should have made a significant contribution to a paper. The first author should have made the biggest contribution to the paper (this will be relevant cross-culturally).

You will also find that in some articles, that the authors will explicate which authors have done what to contribute to the paper as well (however this can be difficult for much larger research teams).  For much larger research teams, I would suggest the first 5 authors making some significant contribution to the actual writing or reviewing of the published work.

Best,

Arun

It logically depends on contribution size for each author.

Actually, all the above is important. However, for example in a publication (most recent) about Bioinformatics topic, there were 19 researchers whose names were in the journal, all got the credit for the journal impact factor of 19 points!

Many journals ask authors to state exactly what each one did to justify having the name but the order is up to the authors.

In another medical review, there was an article stating that authors have to contribute on four dimensions to justify having their names added:

1. Conceptualization of the research.

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology, design of survey or other tools, and distribution

4. data analysis and conclusions

Then, the order will be fixed based on the amount of effort put in the different sections.

Typically the last author is known as the corresponding author as he's most likely the one that holds continuity of the project. The corresponding author is typically the principle investigator and the first author is whoever contributed most. 

Again, the corresponding author is marked in most journals wherever his/her position in the order of names. In some other they have strict rules about it, like the last name.

The order can be sequenced on the contribution

i think you should put the name of the researcher first the one who made the research, as put in the paper.

Like other people  commented, the order should be based on who contributed most to the least. You can use end/footnote to explain to readers what each author contributed. 

Main researcher/s,supervisor, co-supervisor,contributors in data collection/statistician  

You are right Dr. Hejase, I agree with you.

I think according to the contribution of Authors, we should give order. And, if we will give everyone the same, everybody will be happy. Enjoy..

try to get the correct name as mentioned as the text without error

Just one suggestion:

PI is first author, followed by co-PI in the ordered listed in the funded proposal.  All other collaborators in alphabetical order.

The simplest order of authors is in terms of the contributions made by the respective authors to the paper. The seniority etc. may not necessarily be the order, if there are low contributions made by them.

I think best order is that with respect to the contributions of the aouthors, that is, from more contribution to the less one. This is the natural order in what most poeple believe.

Very good exposure Santanu. Thanks for the ref.

In dentistry, the first author and second author gets same credit (15 points each ) rest of them will get (7.5 points) half the credit if it is a original research.

So the authorship order is sensitive to topic, specialty, policy of journals, policy of universities, and common sense.

It depends on the university. Here first author & Second author are getting the equal points if only two authors. Otherwise 0.5 for first author, 0.25 for remaining authors

Interesting answers.

Very good subject . Thanks for all

Dear Shukur, read my first response to this thread, the info is published in a journal i Health Sciences.

The views of the colleagues are interesting. To me, the order of authors in multi-author scientific publications should reflect the real situation regarding their contribution. But, this subject matter requires a lot of discussion.

Regards

I understand that authors are listed from most to least in terms of contribution. However, in a work involving students and supervisors, all students are listed first with the supervisor listed last as the senior author. Hence the classification of the authors will affect listing.

Actually, all the above is important. However, for example in a publication (most recent) about Bioinformatics topic, there were 19 researchers whose names were in the journal, all got the credit for the journal impact factor of 19 points!

Many journals ask authors to state exactly what each one did to justify having the name but the order is up to the authors.

In another medical review, there was an article stating that authors have to contribute on four dimensions to justify having their names added:

1. Conceptualization of the research.

2. Literature Review

3. Methodology, design of survey or other tools, and distribution

4. data analysis and conclusions

Then, the order will be fixed based on the amount of effort put in the different sections.

What is the order of authors in multi-author scientific publications? - Page 2. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_order_of_authors_in_multi-author_scientific_publications2/1 [accessed Jul 26, 2017].

Basically, the order is determined by various factors including relationship of the authors, journal policy, level of contribution, intention of authors towards themselves and many others.

In my university, the first author is the person that made the highest input. 

Thank you Dr. Malaka for your kind recommendation.

Accept my respect.

Emad

Not to forget that the rules are changing due to the massive work done by groups in the laboratories to generate primary data and do the rightful computerized analysis.. Papers include groups up to 25 persons as recorded as authors in papers related to the DNA computational analysis.

The order of authors in a multi-authored paper is from the greatest contributor to the least contributor to the research and the writing of the final paper.

a good coherent research group should get equal contributions from every member of the team. bearing this in view, I find it difficult to find hierarchies in research. Furthermore, in modern scientific research, no one works alone, and publishing results should pay tribute to every member of the team.

I am quite interested in reading all the answers to this debate. Thank you Malka for your fundamental question.

Thanks all for the excellent inputs.

Collaborative research work is greatly encouraged because of the potential impact the outcome of combined good and knowledgeable heads is likely to give.

For the sake of grading, the highest score is often given to the first author.in some academic environment, however this does not justify whose contributions sings the beauty of the work the loudest.

in some journals, it is often requested that the contribution of each author is clearly stated, I think this is fine. May be to determine whose contribution is most important or to discourage the unnecessary inclusion of someone's name in a journal article for whatever reason.

in summary I think the issue of Reward is mostly focused on while labeling the first author, who probably is expected to have initiated the research idea. But what about the responsibilities for possible error!

Who takes that?

The first author or all the authors!

Thank you.

To what extent does the financial contribution matters in measuring the authors' contributions in papers publication?

The new hybrid field of Computer Science and Biological Mathematics have motivated very large teams to work on topics leading to publish in high end journals and very large number of authors and each may claim the same impact factor whatever his/her position among the group members!!

There should be a uniform standard for authorship for all disciplines and the sequence of authors' should be on the basis of the amount of contribution.