There is not a single answer to this question. Situations and opinions are different at different academic institutions of different parts of the world. In majority of the cases, it is necessary for students (particularly for those enrolled in Ph.D. courses) to be the first author to be eligible for the degree. In some cases, it is not necessary for students to be the first author. Therefore, the first point is whether a student is required to be the first author. From another perspective, a student and a supervisor both are two important parts of academic researches. Both of them play very important roles. Logically, a student should be the first author and his/her supervisor should be the second author in general. But, in some academic institutions (i.e. universities), students are responsible for almost 100% of the research with no feedback and cooperation from his/her supervisor. Still the student is forced to put his/her supervisor as the first author. This is a kind of slavery in an academic institution, and this practice must be eliminated with some clear-cut and binding guidelines in the institutions.
The first author should be the person most responsible for the actual text, the act of writing.
Considering academia:
In my opinion, how to write an article is a major part of the learning process. This process includes bringing together the data, pointing out the correlations between the data you have and also those in the literature and finally organization of the article.
The aim of graduate studies is to educate highly qualified scientists to progress the science. Quality of the work depends on "confident" scientists. Considering all of these if a student is not given the chance to write his/her own article, in the end they wont be capable of seeing the big picture is and will not have the chance to learn how to write a scientific article.
The main author should preferably be the student and the supervisor (who I assume has already proven himself/herself in the scientific community) should be the corresponding author.
There is not a single answer to this question. Situations and opinions are different at different academic institutions of different parts of the world. In majority of the cases, it is necessary for students (particularly for those enrolled in Ph.D. courses) to be the first author to be eligible for the degree. In some cases, it is not necessary for students to be the first author. Therefore, the first point is whether a student is required to be the first author. From another perspective, a student and a supervisor both are two important parts of academic researches. Both of them play very important roles. Logically, a student should be the first author and his/her supervisor should be the second author in general. But, in some academic institutions (i.e. universities), students are responsible for almost 100% of the research with no feedback and cooperation from his/her supervisor. Still the student is forced to put his/her supervisor as the first author. This is a kind of slavery in an academic institution, and this practice must be eliminated with some clear-cut and binding guidelines in the institutions.
My personal experience is that my stusent is always the first author if he/she drafted the paper although the idea of the research is mine and I have lots of inputs to revise/polish the paper. I do so for the reasons of: 1) to encourage the student to publish the most recent research outcome in time; 2) to encouragethe student to be familiar with scientific paper writting; 3) Actually, as a supervisor, there is no need to be the first author to demonstrate something important. The achievement of the student (in his/her study during your supervision) is also the achievement of the supervisor as they are a team.
I knew that there is different view on this even from my colleagues in our school.
Normally the first author is the author of the manuscript, regardless to who is the conceiver of the research. The supervisor or the conceiver of the research should be the corresponding author, and in the meantime eithor the first or the last author.
This is a good topic. My point is that even typist can make manuscripts when someone narrates the story that does not mean a typist should be the first author. The first author should be the conceiver, supervisor, guide, instructor or the student himself/herself, whose ideas are worked out most and yielded fruitful results. There are rare instances that student himself formulate and solve the problem on their own. But I clearly mention that first author cannot be someone who just go through the manuscript, and make some corrections to suit their understanding. (Many researchers are in the state of confusion to differentiate both of them).
The person who contributed the most to the work should be the first author. For most papers this would be the student; however, there are obviously cases where the supervisor has done most of the work (come up with the main idea, may have derived key results, etc.) and then the supervisor would be the first author.
Please note that the idea of who should be the first author also varies by discipline and that not everyone will agree with what I stated here.
A very tricky question. In normal sense, it should be the most contributed person, but its not always that. Besides contribution it also depends on the contributory persons position. if a student has put all the experimental work and the supervisor makes the story, i feel the student should be the first author. But if two same level person contributes in same extend then my be fellow with the idea of doing that can be the first author.
The supportive idea and the technical support is to be provided by the supervisor, that is why he/she is supervisor to that project/student. The student/researcher has to be given a chance to implement the guided scientific ideas and give a result by exploring it in the lab. At the same time the researcher/student have the rights to edit the scientific ideas with right references. Student/researcher should get an opportunity to compile the generated data and write the scientific article with the support of the supervisor AND should be given a chance to be the first author.
This question is very interesting. In my opinion, in most cases, the authors thoughts is supervisor. The student will develop and experiment and then find the new things / ideas that emerge from the work. The students should learn to write and work supervisor should correct, regulate its publication.
It is important that the supervisor is the contact person. Because the supervisor is in the university and student need not have to be in the university
Good question. An idealistic attitude is such that the professor gives his name on the end. In such a way I wrote many papers years ago. Then, someone said me that the last name among the authors means usually, that the person was added for a political reason without being a real author. Second, a bit better method is to order the authors in an alphabetical way. This method is useful when all the authors contributed in a similar way to the generation of paper, what happens very seldom. Finally, the method that I adopted now is such, that the student (s) who did most of research work are the first on the paper, than comes professor who sugeested the study, manage it and wrote the paper and, after that, come other co-authors who in one or other way contributed in the study. Most of my present papers are written respecting such rule.
Author list should list in order of contribution (which is open to interpretation unfortunately) so the last author is nearly always the one who has made minimal contribution. Anything else is playing games to trivialize the ordering and therefore coauthors and I have rarely seen any evidence that this has anything to do with idealism - usually a lack of ethics where it is done disingenuously.
In my opinion, i feel that the main researcher in a project should be the first author. The supervisor's name will also be included as the contributor since they are our guide and we should honor them by including their names. Besides, when there is a project done by a group of researchers, the main author should be the one leading the project and the rest are the contributors.
This is a very interesting topic. There isn't a norm. This supervisor is usually the corresponding author. The student could be the first author, however it depends on the policy of the school or the laboratory. Ph'D student is always first author.
In my opinion, the only names that should ideally and ethically feature as the "authors" should be the actual authors. I have often see supervisors insist that their names be put as authors (despite having done no work whatsoever), and I think that's ethically wrong.
Dear Mallika Nawal, I completely agree with you. The authors of a publication are those who have contributed to its realization. It is dangerous for the future of research, those who have brought nothing, impose their presence in the list of authors. This is much more serious when the pressure came from those who are theoretically in charge of supporting, guiding, supervising and directing students in achieving their research. The ethical problem you ask in your answer seems to send us an epistemological reflection on the fundamental responsability of supervisor of postgraduate students (master, doctorate and post-doctorate). I think that the scientific community must reach to new standards for the profession of research supervisors.
To me it is immaterial. The essential issue is that all must have contributed equally to the publication. Quarreling about who is or will be the first author discourages collaboration.
Dear Evens Emmanuel - You're absolutely right when you say that the scientific community must strive for newer (and more ethical) standards when it comes to research supervision. Because, it then becomes a vicious circle and often becomes a "norm".
Taking credit when none is due, is nothing short of "intellectual property" theft!!!
It's a pleasure to touch base with you.
First author must be the person who design and conduct the study with making the first draft of the manuscript. there is no criteria for becoming first author even student can be.
This is an interesting topic but at the same time controversial as well.
At the MS level, the student most often is not in a position to write a paper containing original research. At this stage he needs supervisor help on many fronts. If the paper is published from the MS thesis then it is more appropriate having supervisor's name first.
So the rule of thumb is that whoever contributes more, should be allocated the first author's slot.
The one contributing the most resources should be the first author, followed by the one who contributed less and then lesser etc. This is because it is he who did most of the work that can really defend the work (that is my opinion).
The supervisor may not have written much, but he or she may have been the road map to the publication. In order to be the road map, he or she must have read and probably shared insights into data he or she is privy to. The supervisor also reads the document and edits the document. In some cases, the supervisor writes a section of the publication (if it is a paper).
The student of course has researched, analysed the research and reported on the research. He or she has spent time and resources to get the work done.
In my opinion, the student should be the student should be the first author. This is because whatever correspondence sent to the authors of a publication is sent to the first author. The student did the work and should be able to defend the work.
Dear all,
I think that is a very interesting discussion.
Authorship is an important part of ethical research practice. It should be reserved for those who have made significant intellectual contribution to the research. Some students or scientists are mature enough to decide themselves what should be the order of the authors based on their relative contributions. However, in most cases the supervisor of the work takes the decision regarding the order of the authors judging the relative contribution of the workers (Basu B. N., 2007). According to Department guidelines on authorship, where a research post graduate student and a supervisor jointly author a publication, the norm should be that the research student’s name should appear first. However, where the supervisor has contributed more than half the effort in producing the publication, it’s acceptable for the supervisor’s name to appear first.
I agree with all of you, Who did the major work should come first. The sequence is according to the contribution. It is fair, However, we have to support the students to do major work and writting and then of course to be first author and for supervisors who have long experince, it does not mean to much for him to be first author, let's say, they are too old for this.
In cases where the supervisor is the principle investigator for a given project, where he has given a title for an MSc thesis as a scholarship, read and analyse the data, his work exceeds the input of the MSc student, then he might add sections to the manuscript, at least half of it, then she might act as the first authors, else the MSc student is first. However, we SD consider the type and quality of MSc students enrolled in MSc programs at developing countries, where the supervisor has a tremendous workload in guiding, thesis reading and results discussion, as well as manuscript preparation, here lies the devil of having a fair judgement.
How do we reconcile the everyday role of a supervisor (advice, academic support & expertise, proofing etc.) with a claim on authorship? We see long lists of authors, but often they reflect the wider research team, statistical help etc. Of course, if the supervisor plays an active role in compiling the manuscript and adding original input, then they are to be listed as an author. As Fathi points out, the sequence is according to the level of contribution, so the position or status of the authors is irrelevant - they are listed according to the measurable contribution they have made to the work. All of the published guidelines I am aware of follow this principle.
You are right about the devil of fair judgement, however it is difficult to implement this, if 'the boss' insists on coming along for the ride. If we look at the list of supervisors publications, when they are listed as a final author it may be an indication that their contribution was ... supervisory. It is a wholly needed and valid contribution, but unless their input was original, then guidelines say that they should be listed in the acknowledgement section.
One of the problems we have is that research output (& impact) are highly scrutinised, but routine roles such as teaching are less acknowledged. It is often desirable to have your endeavours and hard work visible, so being an author is more reward than being simply listed as an acknowledgement. I think that until our professional practice (supervisory/support) is acknowledged to the level of our scholarly outputs, we are understandably going to carry on seeing this situation continue. Unfortunately, research funding & support does not take into account how influential we are in getting work of others published, so names often get added on to the list ;-)
http://www.ithenticate.com/plagiarism-detection-blog/survey-over-half-of-indian-doctors-have-observed-plagiarism?utm_campaign=Non-branded%3A+Plagiarism&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=13423178&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_tcxMMDnYShKl_upI6W6bh7eon3sKQdjUxS11tQNbXrdJ0LC4l7vqoMDodwJaTJYv_XA1Zkcjx1nS1YDvaOqeqJB1hGA&_hsmi=13423178#.U_wuho0cSrR
This article says: 'The study also found that 65% of doctors had observed or participated in cases where a physician was gifted authorship to a paper, meaning they were given authorship credit despite not having contributed to the paper. Also, 33.5% said that they had seen the inverse, researchers who had worked on a paper having their names removed.'
What do you think - is this an isolated occurrence or a general trend? I have noted from the posts around RG (& this thread), that some geographical areas / cultures still have a very strong reliance on 'seniority', 'respect', 'status' etc, but this rarely has any substantiation other than some blunt statement like 'this is how we do it' .... dicto ergo est. As we interact on a more global basis, where do we stand on upholding our traditions on one hand, and changing our practices in the face of challenge on the other? Is their any ethical obligation to meet a certain standard, just because our new global playing field views things differently?
Is there any form/document that is required to be signed by all the authors for confirming their name as first author/ second author or other contributors name?
Hema: most main journals have a section that requires the stipulated contribution of all the named authors. The order they are cited in is (in concept) up to the corresponding author & follows the listing supplied in the manuscript. Submitting the manuscript acts as a kind of signature (apart from the signatures on copyright agreements), but other than personal morals, there is no binding responsibility. IMO - if the listed authors are later shown not to have contributed in the way that the journal requires, there should be some type of 'blacklisting' that reaches the public eye, or their institutions. That way, if there was a possibility that 'ghost writers' & people who deliberately breach agreed author criteria may be named & shamed, then there would be less chance of it happening in the first place.
In my opinion this question is irrelevant. The important issue is; did EACH author contribute significantly to the work? The debate about who should be the first author discourages cooperation. What we should be guarding against is 'ghost or honorary' authors. This is a big concern to me.
Try to read this book.
Day, R.A. (1979), How to write and publish a scientific paper, ISI Press, Philadelphia.
I have a copy of the book by R.A. DAY. It does not address the issue in entirety. The concept of WHO should be the first author dates back many years and it did not address the issue of ''significant contribution''. To me the current operational word is '' significant contribution''. Currently most medical journals follow this concept.
here in pakistan if you are an undergraduate student and you publish an article in journal so the lobby of professor thinks it is a sin. huh. now i know why our education system is so down
Where are these downvotes coming from? Come on - if you have an objection to someone's post, then post a riposte of your own. It takes much more to issue a convincing counter argument, rather than a nameless stab in the dark 🎓
First author should be main contributor that covers up to 80% of the experimental work and writing.
I think the main contributor is the first, student is the 2nd and supervisor is the last.
I think the researcher who develops research construct, drives research process and coordinates with rest of the authors for their bits & parts of the work, should be the 1st author.
I agree with John Canning. Authors names should list in order of contribution. So, the last author is always the one who has made minimal contribution. The main contributor covers up to 80% of the experimental work and writing.
The person who suggest the idea of the research then other persons according to their efforts. This is my opinion.
The correct one is to write the search from the person who puts his name in the beginning and then the one who followed the work of the office or the field and so on
I believe that the person who made the highest contribution should be the first author. If it is the student then so be it!
All the above comments but no statement for this subject. ASU my university stated that the first author should be the student !!!
The first author is usually the person who has made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work, in terms designing the study, acquiring and analyzing data from experiments, and writing the manuscript.
Yes, The first author is usually the person who has made the most significant intellectual contribution
Although there is no hard and fast rule except the institution do have internal rules; but in case of PhD or master students, of-course supervisors are putting much efforts as well as financial support for the studies directly or indirectly.
Normally first author and the corresponding author (especially when he/she is second author) are given the same weight-age. Hence, there are two ways:
1. (If first authorship is a degree requirement): Student as first author; and supervisor as second and corresponding author.
2. (If first authorship is not a degree requirement): Supervisor as first author; and student as second author and corresponding author.
Rest of the co-authors may be listed as in the same order as contribution. However, normally over 5 authors papers are considers as buddy authorships.
This is related to question: how about if someone publish a manuscript without put name of all contributors? Say that alumni who publish their final assignments/thesis/dissertation with single author or their own names without put the supervisors on the list
@Imami Rachmawati .... Supervision of thesis is the responsibility of the supervisor and s/he is given a big credit for it. So, although thesis would be published as a single author (student) but the supervisor name would be there as a mentor.
It depends up on individual contributions ; Usually supervisors won't deny their students to take first position.
More and more journals are going over to demand for the contribution of each co-author. It should be clear that first author did the main writing, usually also the concept of the study. In case the first author is a PhD student, the concept may also come from the supervisor.
However, each co-author should have also a direct contribution to the publication, and not just being the supervisor, at least everyone should have read the manuscript and given his comments before first submission to the journal.
Main contributor should be the first author as well as corresponding author and others can follow
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing