Various rules/protocols are being practiced by different universities and publishers for authorship and ordering the authors in a new publication. For instance, in papers published by MSc or PhD students, a common practice is to specify the first author as the one who had the idea, performed most of the technical job and the data analysis. After him/her the order of co-authors is supervisor(s)/ adviser(s) depending on how much they contributed (intellectually, academic funding, enhancing scientifically , etc.) to the paper. So far so good, but "what about the corresponding author?" As you know the corresponding author has multiple responsibilities as he/she is the point of contact with the editor and he/she must communicate any matters that arise after publication to their co-authors. Whom should you include as the corresponding author, co-authors on a paper, and in what order? Does indicating an author as corresponding author increases the author’s credit for contribution to the published paper? In some cases whether it is the student or the adviser who should be corresponding author?
Academic staff move about and retire, and students are notorious for leaving academia on graduation. Furthermore, it is impossible for a journal editor ("The Editor") to sort out problems with many co-authors who may be in disagreement. Thus there has developed a custom of indicating which author to contact. Most often it will be the first mentioned author, but there are many circumstances where this is inconvenient and any other author can be delegated that task without having to explain why to the reader. Bestowing a label of 'corresponding author' does not bring any honour to that author; just more administrative work.
Academic staff move about and retire, and students are notorious for leaving academia on graduation. Furthermore, it is impossible for a journal editor ("The Editor") to sort out problems with many co-authors who may be in disagreement. Thus there has developed a custom of indicating which author to contact. Most often it will be the first mentioned author, but there are many circumstances where this is inconvenient and any other author can be delegated that task without having to explain why to the reader. Bestowing a label of 'corresponding author' does not bring any honour to that author; just more administrative work.
I am still not happy that people are worming their way into the author line because that are opening the doors to funding. This should not happen.
The corresponding author is normally the main author of the article. However, I have come across second authors being indicated as the corresponding authors, and I do not know the reason! it seems odd, but I guess there is some sort of agreement between the authors. For instance I have come across a case where the main author had his paper rejected on a number of occasion, then he had it published eventually after the second author proposed to help restructure it. This second author had a star next to his name and was referred to as the corresponding author.
Hello.
The definition of authorship is usually attributed to individuals/s who have conducted the study and has the capacity to defend, in its entirety, from problem conceptualization up the smallest details of a thorough analysis as well as the implications (especially in the social sciences). There is no such thing as a rigid role in ordering authorship as well as in the identification of a corresponding author. However, in practice, the scholarly community have sort of adapted a RULE OF THUMB whereby the individual who have contributed the most in the bulk of work (this part is usually decided by the TEAM who claims authorship of the paper) associated with the task. This is why graduate students who did the research is USUALLY given first authorship followed by their supervisors or advisers... As for the corresponding author, it is simply a designation to facilitate communication between the editor and the team (researchers) who submitted the paper for publication. Since as defined, authorship NECESSITATES full knowledge of the paper in consideration, it is therefore NOT an issue as to who to choose for correspondence. It is usually judged on the merit of convenience and efficiency (given the amount of time that reputable journals demand for blind review process) as well as within the consensus of the team (researchers). Besides, it is understood that once the corresponding author receives communication from the editor, he or she is expected to relay the said communication to the team and revise (or justify) the paper - as a team. UNLESS, there was an explicit agreement that the corresponding author is given authority to revise the manuscript alone... a practice that is both UNLIKELY and at the same not so credible and borderline unethical.
Hope this helps. All the best. By the way, I don't mean to shout with the ALL-CAPS words. They are just for emphasis. :D
Dear Mahmoud,
I recently asked almost similar question.
After reading all the comments, I feels there should be guidelines for corresponding author too as this is one of the indispensable things that you need to disclose at the time of uploading your manuscript.
I personally feel that corresponding author should be one who devised and implemented the methodology of the research and this "responsibility" should not be affected by the academic position of the author/ co-author.
This should not be difficult to decide from the list of author contribution (provided it is authentic).
Dear Mahmoud,
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, there are two different approaches to define the corresponding author: individual and group level. You can read the role of authors and contributors in this link: Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Besides, there are two main theories about the author contributing more to the article:
1. The corresponding author is the author contributing more to the article (Wren et al. 2007).
2. First and last authorship have some significant meaning (Rennie et al. 1997; Burman 1982; Reisenberg and Lundberg 1990; Drenth 1998; Kennedy 2003) are complementary. Curiously, this argument is supported by the result that the majority of corresponding authors appear as either first or last authors.
Mattsson, Sundberg & Laget (2011) found that corresponding authors were more likely to appear first in the byline, which is in accordance with ICMJEs guidelines. Because of this, the corresponding author should be considered the main contributor.
This is truer when applied to institutions, countries or disciplines than when applied to authors. Because although it may be the case that the main contributor cedes responsibility of receiving correspondence to another close author, it is more unlikely to cede it to an author from another institution.
In this line, last year was published a paper related to the measure and significance of corresponding author applied to analysis of institutions or countries. The idea behind the corresponding author is associated to the leadership of research. The reference: Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V., Bortmann, L. & Moed, H. (2013). The research guarantors of scientific papers and the output counting: a promising new approach. Scientometrics, 97, 421-434.
I hope this is useful
The answer is quite straight forward I guess. "To whom the the correspondence should be made" is the corresponding author. It implies that the corresponding author is person who is 100% capable of answering any query about the study, he is involved in the research from zero to end.
By the way as far as I am concerned the last author is the supervisory author.
Dear Mahmoud
I just find this question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_should_be_the_1st_author_How_the_conflict_between_a_student_and_supervisor_can_be_resolved?
Maybe can be useful have a look
Regards,
I think that as corresponding author you should always cite the lead author. This means the author who contributed the most in your manuscript and who is capable to answer the questions raised by the publisher and future commentaries.
By default, the first mentioned author is regarded as being the author to correspond with. If circumstance differ and this is not so, then it is a simple convention to indicate which author to contact.
What we think should be the situation is very often NOT the situation. For example, there should be only one system of referencing. Life, unfortunately is not that easy!
The purpose of the corresponding author is this
he is available for doubts, communication and future correspondence
Authorship is very a sensitive issue in most research environments. My experience is that as a Ph D candidate and to a lesser extent Masters candidate ,the work belongs to you. You should be the 1st author in most of the publications unless the articles were written for you by the promoter\supervisor. On the other hand, institutions have their own policies as well, on how many articles should be prepared from the main study as part of the qualification requirements. Personally,my belief is that once you have met the instituions policy requirements regarding the number of articles to be prepared before graduation,you have to make a choice of how much contribution the other 'author ' has contributed. As for the percentage of who is 2nd, 3rd etc,this discussion must be made in the beginnning of writting the article as opposed to having to make this decision a few weeks before sending the article for publication or worse, after the article have been accepted. Then, suddenly you wonder who is the corresponding author,who is 2nd, 3rd etc. Be assertive about this, and have open discussions about authorship with all parties involved in the beginning of the decision to publish. The corresponding author is the author that the editor will communicate with in relation to the article to be published, and automatically this person become the 1st author. Most often the 1st author is the person who did most of the work in the work to be published.
Dear @Mmajapi Elizabeth Chokwe, Thank you for your comments. I agree with most of it except for saying the 1st author should be nominated as corresponding author. I think the role of corresponding author is not the same as doing the research (by student) but he/she has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal. He/She must be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and even after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Students dont have such familiarity with the issue and most likely dont care much after their graduation and fixing a job in a company, etc.
Try to read this book.
Day, R.A. (1979), How to write and publish a scientific paper, ISI Press, Philadelphia.
Authorship order and duties are an ongoing issue. A lot of these unwritten rules depend upon the culture of the particular organization. Here, I address scientific articles; other disciplines may have different concepts.
As Federal employees, we have historically (25 years ago, or more ago) all been considered "equal" in status - we had no students, post-docs, etc., and so the order was simple; the primary writer was first author, the coauthors were listed in subsequent order of contribution. First author was the power position; being the corresponding author was considered more of a chore than an honor. This all changed when we implemented rigorous internal clearance procedures where the senior person (the PI) was responsible for the content of the article. This person, ultimately defaulted to serve as the external corresponding author.
Over the past 20 years, this government model has been influenced by the academic model of authorship where the last author listed is considered the "power" position. We now have many post-docs, and all types of levels of collaborative researchers, and so the authorship order rules are muddied. In my lab, for example, if one of my students, junior colleagues, contractors, or post-docs is the technical lead on a project, they are the first author and have the primary writing duty. I usually serve as corresponding author, and place myself as second author, although many of my younger colleagues have embraced the academic model and regularly take the last spot. Other contributors are then listed. I personally don't care about the last author position but many others do so it can be touchy.
In academia, the student/post doc/junior colleague who is the writer is also first author. The senior professor (Principal Investigator) always reserves the last spot on the list and generally serves as correspondent. The middle slots are then allocated almost at random. If the first author is also the correspondent, then this is code that the last spot is no longer the power position for that article.
That said, there are exceptions to these guidelines. I agree with some of the folks who have weighed in above that the corresponding author needs to be around for a while in the institution to address questions - so it's probably not a good idea to have a term employee, soon to retire colleague, or other short timer in this capacity, regardless of power position or expertise. One other option is to have two corresponding authors; this is allowed by some journals to assure that there is a greater likelihood that someone could respond.
Hope this helps!
Mahmoud Omid I thoroughly agree with you, but unfortunately, the corresponding author has only been recognized as a label in recent years, and some professors labelled by that, never answer the correspondence. Because the article is usually submitted, by the students, to the online system of the journal, then they will choose their professor's name as the corresponding author! Clearly, this raises a lot of problems.
I agree with you that some people simply do not respond... In those cases, I search co- authors' emails and try them.
To correspond in case someone wants to contact the authors. Its just a tradition as we all know.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications