(co-)authorship of scientific and scholarly publications can be claimed by all who made significant intellectual contributions to the completion of the research described in the publication. Since research has over recent decades become more and more teamwork, issues of authorship can sometimes become subject of discussion. Policies differ between disciplines and between institutions. It would be useful to check whether you institution has issued any guidelines or code of conduct on this matter. An example is given in the following link: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html In case your institution has not developed a policy, you could check with your national Academy of Sciences. Also some journals have established guidelines for authorship that need to be consulted before submission of the manuscript.

Rules on the order of authorship also differ between fields of research. Often it considers the listing in order of their degree of involvement in the study. Sometimes listing is simply done afphabetically.

Although listing authors in order of the involvement in the project seems straightforward, it often generates discussion. Besides, the fight might actually be on who is the last author. Historically biologists placed the principle investigator (supervisor, head of research group/dept) as last author, and this is considered ‘the place to be’. This practice has meanwhile become common standard in most science and engineering disciplines.

I personally feel that the co-researcher who does most of the actual writing should also be the first author. In my research projects, I usually ask the PhD student to write up the manuscript, because as such this exercise (while sometimes cumbersome due to numerous and extensive reviews by the supervisor) contributes to his/her training in scientific reporting/writing. MSc students who contributed to the research follow as co-authors, while my name (as supervisor) would usually follow last in the list.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship

in case of developing a thesis whether it is a master or a PhD at all the times the right of being first author goes to the student... please do not forget that master and PhD programs are learning process in all their concepts.

the conflict started when the student get his/her degree just to show for!!! in this case the supervisor should blame him/her self of choosing such careless student and try to change 80% of the actual work of the student to be able to publish it under their names. simply changing the hypothesis will allow the supervisor to publish in confidant.

The student should be first author if s/he has done all the hard work including field works, lab works, data processing, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting the paper. The supervisor(s) should be 2nd or 3rd (main and co-supervisor respectively)

Interestingly i've seen a third one many times; i.e. a careing supervisor providing all data (and even preliminary analysis), and making suggestions and substantial comments on the draft version, making the student rewrite it multiple times. After multiple rewrites and still not being journal material, the supervisor

-decide to rewrite the paper himself from scratch and gifting the student first authorship ("I have tenure, i do not care"....)

-compensating the student for hu's hard (but ineffective) work with a gift second/third etc. authorship of a loosely related paper

As for the original question; 1st scene i think that the supervisor should be 1st author but as no ms can be submitted without the knowledge and consent of all authors, ms will be left in the drawer if the student is not okay with 2nd authorship.

Concerning the 2nd scene, 1st authorship goes to the student, no question.

Have a look

https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_a_manuscript_is_developed_to_a_publication_who_should_become_the_authors_and_in_what_order

Or follow this discussion!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_people_decide_upon_first_second_last_and_corresponding_author

I'm with Janos that in the 1st scenario the supervisor and in the 2nd the student get to be first author. In prinziple, to avoid hassle and conflict it should be discussed between students and supervisor who it doing what and who will write the manuscript before the work is done.

Who writes the paper, who is the first author. It works in my lab, no matter who did that work.

In our lab, the one who write the manuscript is the 1st author. Even though the others may contribute the most to the work.

The way of preventing this sort of thing is to establish who will do what and who will be the main authors at as early a stage as possible. There's no hard-and-fast rule as to who the first author should be, which is why it needs to be worked our as soon as possible.

In your first scenario, the supervisor is the first author- the student has essentially disowned the manuscript. In my experience, the supervisor would usually re-write the whole thing and analyse the data again anyway, and therefore the student's contribution has just been to collect the data.

In the second scenario, it has to be student- that's essentially what happens with all grad student papers (though there's usually more than one draft!).

Alphabetical order solves a lot of troubles, unless is a Nature or Science paper!

(co-)authorship of scientific and scholarly publications can be claimed by all who made significant intellectual contributions to the completion of the research described in the publication. Since research has over recent decades become more and more teamwork, issues of authorship can sometimes become subject of discussion. Policies differ between disciplines and between institutions. It would be useful to check whether you institution has issued any guidelines or code of conduct on this matter. An example is given in the following link: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html In case your institution has not developed a policy, you could check with your national Academy of Sciences. Also some journals have established guidelines for authorship that need to be consulted before submission of the manuscript.

Rules on the order of authorship also differ between fields of research. Often it considers the listing in order of their degree of involvement in the study. Sometimes listing is simply done afphabetically.

Although listing authors in order of the involvement in the project seems straightforward, it often generates discussion. Besides, the fight might actually be on who is the last author. Historically biologists placed the principle investigator (supervisor, head of research group/dept) as last author, and this is considered ‘the place to be’. This practice has meanwhile become common standard in most science and engineering disciplines.

I personally feel that the co-researcher who does most of the actual writing should also be the first author. In my research projects, I usually ask the PhD student to write up the manuscript, because as such this exercise (while sometimes cumbersome due to numerous and extensive reviews by the supervisor) contributes to his/her training in scientific reporting/writing. MSc students who contributed to the research follow as co-authors, while my name (as supervisor) would usually follow last in the list.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship

Who should be included as an author on a paper and the order in which this should take place is actually quite a complicated issue. Many universities have guidelines that discuss this topic. It is complicated by a lot of factors. The ones that I have experienced as a program director that have most likely caused the most hassle/confusion are (1) the determination of what "significant" means, and (2) whether there is a "work-for-hire" sentiment or clause in the mix.

A student in our program wrote a paper which was published that offers some insights. Note, that I cautiously refrain from using the word "solutions"!

Henrie, Morgan, "Publication Authorship Etiquette: When Advising What Advice Should you Provide Your Students?", The Journal of Learning in Higher Education, Vol 2, Issue 2, Fall 2006.

If you are the Head of the Laboratory's is easy, you will be the corresponding author and the student the first author. If you are a postdoc and supervisor of the student and the project idea is yours, You must be the second author and clarify that both contributed equally and Head of the Laboratory will be the Corresponding Author. Unless the Head and you talk about it. All depend in which steps of the food pyramid you are.

It is very clear and easy to determine. The student who does all the field work, collects data, analyze it, puts it on the MS and writes the MS should have 1st authorship and at the same time if the supervisor is involved in the post work like editing and improvements, he should be given corresponding authorship. If the whole idea, analysis and MS building is by Supervisor, then he should be 1st author cum corresponding author, The student who just followed the instructions and worked in field should be given the second authorship. It is as simple as that. Just analyze the mental and physical labour involved in bring out the MS. More over a worthy student has to be given 1st priority as he is in the initial stages of building his profile.

There is a growing aura around being the last author on a paper now once you have established and are managing a lab. Supervisors are often placed as the last author on a paper, with this position of authorship beginning to be recognized as the "senior author", denoting supervision and a high degree of expertise. Hence, there seems to be an evolving shift in authorial preference as one's career develops. As a graduate student and junior scientist, primary authorship is preferred; as one's career progresses, last authorship can signify a whole different skill set and level of expertise.

Regardless, students and supervisors need to sit down and discuss authorship before the student even begins their research. Students need to figure out what they're comfortable with and what they want before deciding on a particular school/lab/supervisor. This should all be part of the process in choosing where to conduct graduate/post doctoral work and will help in enhancing the grad school/post doc experience.

Every Institution may have their own rules. Is important to discuss this with the student first in order to avoid further problems. For me, the first author must be that who put more ideas to propose a solution or that who wrote most of the discussion. No matter his academic status. To correct or edit a manuscript written by a student does not make his/her tutor first author.

Dear all, we have 10 downvotes in this thread! Why, why, why? Instead of only downvoting, comment a comment that You do not like and give a reasonable explanation. It is not forbidden to downvote, but it should be done fairly!

I appreciate the contribution for this very issue. The issue is still there until or unless we can't find any collective solution. The conflict between the student and supervisor is there and as a result of which most of the time the quality is compromised or the relation in team work faces a trust deficit situation and overall it causes the demoralization in academia and researchers. One can not close the eyes from the reality and this question is raised based on ground facts to find common solution after having intellectual discussions. The authorship issue is not a local, regional or national only rather it is an international issue. I disagree with the arguments making it an institutional issue. Why there should be different criteria for students, researchers, supervisors working in different institutes? Is there any boundary of research, academia? if not, why we are making such policies/criteria for authorship in which sometimes the student and sometimes the supervisor is in loss? In some institutes the students are more facilitated while in some other institutes the supervisor. Means there is no rule/standard or criteria to follow universally. My suggestion would to adopt/have a universal standard/criteria for this very issue and all institutes/researchers/students/supervisors should follow accordingly, otherwise this issue will be there.

Nowadays, is often a collaborative effort and publishing results is critical to the advancement of both knowledge and careers. Yet dilemmas of 'right credit' are often at the center of many disputes. Authorship provides recognition among peers and establishes intellectual and professional credibility, which contribute to career progression. The selection of authors for a paper should be jointly agreed by all of the collaborators on a project as soon as the group has decided the assignment of responsibilities and workload for all members of the group. Authors of a scientific work must have participated sufficiently in conception, experimentation, acquisition of data, analysis/ interpretation of data and writing/revising of article critically for important intellectual content of the work so as to take public responsibility for its content and must be able to respond to quarries. Mere contribution in acquisition of funding, collection of data and supervising the overall activities of the research group are not sufficient to justify authorship. Ideally, the primary author (i.e., the first author) must have the overall supreme contribution including originality of contribution, major intellectual input throughout the study, drafting major feature of the manuscript of key importance and have demonstrated the ability to exert scientific leadership of the project so as to assume responsibility for a major professional aspect of the work, and ensure that all the project objectives are met. No one is entitled to primary authorship solely because of administrative position or expertise in subject/discipline. Thus the primary author of a paper is generally chosen based on an evaluation of that individual’s contributions to the conception, planning, and execution of the study. Selection of the primary author should reflect a consensus of the paper’s co-authors on the most deserving individual. Co-authorship for a paper should be jointly agreed by all of the collaborators on a project. So far authorship of Ph.D. scholars who are in process of career progression, the guide should assigned and encourage them to play a key role in planning and execution and finally drafting of the research paper so that than can be genuinely placed as first author.

It depends, who writes the paper and who took the scientific responsibility for planning the study, who interpretated the data, who supervised the PhD student. No one is entitled to authorship because of adminastritaive position only (due to publication and/or university ethics rules). It depends on intelectual contribution. Some PhD students are planning and finaly drafting the research paper, so than they can be placed as first authors.Others are not!

In the following threads, there are many different opinions about co-authorships between professor and a student. Some people think that BSc/MSc students should not be included as co-authors on scientific journal publications. The first author does not deserve more credit but very often more administrative work sometimes. Many good questions and answers follow.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Difference_between_Corresponding_author_and_First_author_and_what_are_all_their_responsibilities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_order_of_authors_in_an_article_follow_certain_guidelines

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Clear_criteria_for_not_including_BSc_MSc_students_as_co-authors_on_scientific_journal_publications

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_purpose_of_labeling_an_author_as_corresponding_author

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_the_first_author_on_a_paper_receive_more_credit_than_the_co-authors

First-authorship, and author order more generally, is not something to be decided based on politics. And also not on the ability to insist. It is to be decided based on ideas, effort, and contributions. And after a discussion among all authors, not by a single author. Someone who did most of the work, did the bulk of the measurements or calculations, collected input, and wrote the manuscript, without any doubt, should be the first author of the paper.

See "Who Should Be The First Author of a Scientific Paper?"

http://www.jakobrdl.dk/blog/2016/08/who-should-be-the-first-author-of-a-scientific-paper

Always student should be the first author of the articles prepared from his/her thesis or research.

If same supervisor claim to be the first author, he/ she do not deserve to be a supervisor!

In many highly rated journals, 1st authorship is not at all a criteria of judging the superiority of an author. Rather the relative contribution of each author is definitely specified and the corresponding author or authors generally take (s) the responsibility to do much of the work right from conceptualization of research questions to ultimate publication of the paper as online and/or print format. I have seen a paper published in "Nature" showing about 30 or more authors' names written only alphabetically. It appears to be more realistic particularly in cases of multidisciplinary research works where each one do their bit exclusively and uniquely.......and certainly this would make sense.

It depends, who writes the paper and who took the scientific responsibility for planning the study, who interpreted the data, who supervised the PhD student. No one is entitled to authorship because of administrative position only (due to publication and/or university ethics rules: code of conduct). It depends on intellectual contribution. Some PhD students are planning and finally drafting the research paper, so than they can be placed as first authors. Others are not!

It is different with collaborative research (i.e. big interdisciplinary groups). In this case the authors can be either listed alphabetically or the co-authorship should be discussed.