Two points come to the fore for me here; firstly, the focus on climbing the 'greasy-pole' of academia can be extremely divisive and damage the academic work we are trying to do; and, secondly, as academics we perhaps must be more effective in our resistance to exploitation over such matters.

I believe you are entirely correct in saying there is no universal justification and I have seen some appalling misuses of power and position to gain primary place in authorship. On moral grounds I would say that if one has contributed most to a paper then that person should be first author. If contributions are equal then alphabetic ordering seems common, but privileges those with names at the start of the alphabet. Many of my own publications are shared authorship of equal contribution and we alternate authorship as a result, but where I did most I am first author, where colleagues did most they are first author. I cannot see justification merely abuse of power to do otherwise.

Thanks for the question!

Two points come to the fore for me here; firstly, the focus on climbing the 'greasy-pole' of academia can be extremely divisive and damage the academic work we are trying to do; and, secondly, as academics we perhaps must be more effective in our resistance to exploitation over such matters.

I believe you are entirely correct in saying there is no universal justification and I have seen some appalling misuses of power and position to gain primary place in authorship. On moral grounds I would say that if one has contributed most to a paper then that person should be first author. If contributions are equal then alphabetic ordering seems common, but privileges those with names at the start of the alphabet. Many of my own publications are shared authorship of equal contribution and we alternate authorship as a result, but where I did most I am first author, where colleagues did most they are first author. I cannot see justification merely abuse of power to do otherwise.

Thanks for the question!

This question emerges from time to time. In my circle when someone want to assure first authorship one come up with a research idea and prepare a draft, then goes from house to house to find a competent and interested collaborator. In these situations it is usually not hard to settle the question of first authorship before the actual collaboratian begins. I think that coming up with the research idea with some preliminary discussions and an extended plan for its realization justifies first authorship as long as this person also have an important part in analysis and writing. Here, the bottom line of "important" could be anywhere between 30 and 50%, depending on the quality, and the changes and extensions made on the initial draft.

I'd say whoever does the most *intellectual* work on a paper -- as opposed to the boring, but necessary work (reviewing literature, checking citations, tidying up the structure/grammar, etc). It should be painfully obvious to all authors who contributed the best ideas. Ask the question: who came up with the central thesis and the argument/evidence for it?

(Of course, this does not mean *merely* having a good idea. An intellectual contribution must be written down clearly and precisely to count for anything.)

In the event that everyone contributed equally, then the names should appear alphabetically by surname.

I know that the politics of academic life results sometimes in senior authors taking the ideas of junior authors and presenting them as their own (and junior authors being amenable/agreeable to this for the dubious pleasure of being published with a senior, more experienced academic), but this quid pro quo is immoral and wrong. It is against the spirit of intellectual inquiry.

There may well be discipline-specific differences in authorship protocol. For example, I believe some scientific teams list authors by seniority regardless of who wrote the paper/came up with the ideas (and the originator might well be relegated to a "last" author, or a mere research "assistant", and not an author at all). Whilst understandable at some level (the senior academics get the grants that funds the research) it is no better, morally speaking, than when politicians present other people's ideas as their own.

A good point Artur but how do measure full consent and can we always be sure that power has not been abused to cajole apparent consent?

This is of course a half-witted way of evaluating someones 'worth' as a scientist and panders to the absurd orthodoxy in higher education that is undermining innovative endeavour.

The only thing that should determine a hierarchy of authorship is contribution level. A professor tagging his/her name on to a paper as joint author when they have contributed little is not only dishonest but removes incentive.

I agree with Martin that those who have contributed equally should be listed in alphabetical order with 'Professor Zacharias' featuring after 'research assistant Absalom'. A major contributor should feature higher up the pecking order only on size or degree of contribution and crediting anyone with authorship based soley on financial contribution should always be disallowed.

Thanks for the questions and contributions from all. I didn't know that the order of co-authorship can be an issue for academics. I haven't heard about it in our local higher institutions.

I really agree with Shafig that the person who made more effort and contributed more to the research should be the first author. Anyhow, all the authers must have been agreed for the order of their names to appear on the research.

I have an understanding with my co-authors that whoever attempts to prepare the first draft, should be the first co-author. The other/s may contribute in doing other activities. We have had almost no quarrel on this issue. Interestingly, in my institute, no discrimination is done on this basis; all co-authors are believed to have made equal contribution.