order of authors on research paper

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Order Authors in Scientific Papers

It’s rare that an article is authored by only one or two people anymore. In fact, the average original research paper has five authors these days. The growing list of collaborative research projects raises important questions regarding the author order for research manuscripts and the impact an author list has on readers’ perceptions.

With a handful of authors, a group might be inclined to create an author name list based on the amount of work contributed. What happens, though, when you have a long list of authors? It would be impractical to rank the authors by their relative contributions. Additionally, what if the authors contribute relatively equal amounts of work? Similarly, if a study was interdisciplinary (and many are these days), how can one individual’s contribution be deemed more significant than another’s?

Why does author order matter?

Although an author list should only reflect those who have made substantial contributions to a research project and its draft manuscript (see, for example, the authorship guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ), we’d be remiss to say that author order doesn’t matter. In theory, everyone on the list should be credited equally since it takes a team to successfully complete a project; however, due to industry customs and other practical limitations, some authors will always be more visible than others.

The following are some notable implications regarding author order.

• The “first author” is a coveted position because of its increased visibility. This author is the first name readers will see, and because of various citation rules, publications are usually referred to by the name of the first author only. In-text or bibliographic referencing rules, for example, often reduce all other named authors to “et al.” Since employers use first-authorship to evaluate academic personnel for employment, promotion, and tenure, and since graduate students often need a number of first-author publications to earn their degree, being the lead author on a manuscript is crucial for many researchers, especially early in their career.
• The last author position is traditionally reserved for the supervisor or principal investigator. As such, this person receives much of the credit when the research goes well and the flak when things go wrong. The last author may also be the corresponding author, the person who is the primary contact for journal editors (the first author could, however, fill this role as well, especially if they contributed most to the work).
• Given that there is no uniform rule about author order, readers may find it difficult to assess the nature of an author’s contribution to a research project. To address this issue, some journals, particularly medical ones, nowadays insist on detailed author contribution notes (make sure you check the target journal guidelines before submission to find out how the journal you are planning to submit to handles this). Nevertheless, even this does little to counter how strongly citation rules have enhanced the attention first-named authors receive.

Common Methods for Listing Authors

The following are some common methods for establishing author order lists.

• Relative contribution. As mentioned above, the most common way authors are listed is by relative contribution. The author who made the most substantial contribution to the work described in an article and did most of the underlying research should be listed as the first author. The others are ranked in descending order of contribution. However, in many disciplines, such as the life sciences, the last author in a group is the principal investigator or “senior author”—the person who often provides ideas based on their earlier research and supervised the current work.
• Alphabetical list . Certain fields, particularly those involving large group projects, employ other methods . For example, high-energy particle physics teams list authors alphabetically.
• Multiple “first” authors . Additional “first” authors (so-called “co-first authors”) can be noted by an asterisk or other symbols accompanied by an explanatory note. This practice is common in interdisciplinary studies; however, as we explained above, the first name listed on a paper will still enjoy more visibility than any other “first” author.
• Multiple “last” authors . Similar to recognizing several first authors, multiple last authors can be recognized via typographical symbols and footnotes. This practice arose as some journals wanted to increase accountability by requiring senior lab members to review all data and interpretations produced in their labs instead of being awarded automatic last-authorship on every publication by someone in their group.
• Negotiated order . If you were thinking you could avoid politics by drowning yourself in research, you’re sorely mistaken. While there are relatively clear guidelines and practices for designating first and last authors, there’s no overriding convention for the middle authors. The list can be decided by negotiation, so sharpen those persuasive argument skills!

As you can see, choosing the right author order can be quite complicated. Therefore, we urge researchers to consider these factors early in the research process and to confirm this order during the English proofreading process, whether you self-edit or received manuscript editing or paper editing services , all of which should be done before submission to a journal. Don’t wait until the manuscript is drafted before you decide on the author order in your paper. All the parties involved will need to agree on the author list before submission, and no one will want to delay submission because of a disagreement about who should be included on the author list, and in what order (along with other journal manuscript authorship issues).

On top of that, journals sometimes have clear rules about changing authors or even authorship order during the review process, might not encourage it, and might require detailed statements explaining the specific contribution of every new/old author, official statements of agreement of all authors, and/or a corrigendum to be submitted, all of which can further delay the publication process. We recommend periodically revisiting the named author issue during the drafting stage to make sure that everyone is on the same page and that the list is updated to appropriately reflect changes in team composition or contributions to a research project.

• Translators
• Graphic Designers

Please enter the email address you used for your account. Your sign in information will be sent to your email address after it has been verified.

How to Order and Format Author Names in Scientific Papers

As the world becomes more interconnected, the production of knowledge increasingly relies on collaboration. Scientific papers, the primary medium through which researchers communicate their findings, often feature multiple authors. However, authorship isn't merely a reflection of those who contributed to a study but often denotes prestige, recognition, and responsibility. In academic papers, the order of authors is not arbitrary. It can symbolize the level of contribution and the role played by each author in the research process. Deciding on the author order can sometimes be a complex and sensitive issue, making it crucial to understand the different roles and conventions of authorship in scientific research. This article will explore the various types of authors found in scientific papers, guide you on how to correctly order and format author names, and offer insights to help you navigate this critical aspect of academic publishing.

The first author

The first author listed in a scientific paper is typically the person who has made the most substantial intellectual contribution to the work. This role is often filled by a junior researcher such as a Ph.D. student or postdoctoral fellow, who has been intimately involved in almost every aspect of the project.

The first author usually plays a pivotal role in designing and implementing the research, including the formation of hypotheses, experimental design, data collection, data analysis, and interpretation of the findings. They also commonly take the lead in manuscript preparation, writing substantial portions of the paper, including the often-challenging task of turning raw data into a compelling narrative.

In academia, first authorship is a significant achievement, a clear demonstration of a researcher's capabilities and dedication. It indicates that the researcher possesses the skills and tenacity to carry a project from inception to completion. This position can dramatically impact a researcher's career trajectory, playing a critical role in evaluations for promotions, grants, and future academic positions.

However, being the first author is not just about prestige or professional advancement. It carries a weight of responsibility. The first author is generally expected to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the data presented in the paper. They are often the person who responds to reviewers' comments during the peer-review process and makes necessary revisions to the manuscript.

Also, as the first author, it is typically their duty to address any questions or critiques that may arise post-publication, often having to defend the work publicly, even years after publication.

Thus, first authorship is a role that offers significant rewards but also requires a strong commitment to uphold the principles of scientific integrity and transparency. While it's a coveted position that can be a steppingstone to career progression, the associated responsibilities and expectations mean that it should not be undertaken lightly.

The middle authors

The middle authors listed on a scientific paper occupy an essential, albeit sometimes ambiguous, role in the research project. They are typically those who have made significant contributions to the project, but not to the extent of the first author. This group often includes a mix of junior and senior researchers who have provided key input, assistance, or resources to the project.

The roles of middle authors can be quite diverse. Some might be involved in specific aspects of data collection or analysis. Others may bring specialized knowledge or technical skills essential to the project, providing expertise in a particular methodology, statistical analysis, or experimental technique. There might also be middle authors who have contributed vital resources to the project, such as unique reagents or access to a particular patient population.

In some fields, the order of middle authors reflects the degree of their contribution. The closer a middle author is to the first position, the greater their involvement, with the second author often having made the next largest contribution after the first author. This order may be negotiated among the authors, requiring clear communication and consensus.

However, in other disciplines, particularly those where large collaborative projects are common, the order of middle authors may not necessarily reflect their level of contribution. In such cases, authors might be listed alphabetically, or by some other agreed-upon convention. Therefore, it's crucial to be aware of the norms in your specific field when deciding the order of middle authors.

Being a middle author in a scientific paper carries less prestige and responsibility than being a first or last author, but it is by no means a minor role. Middle authors play a crucial part in the scientific endeavor, contributing essential expertise and resources. They are integral members of the research team whose collective efforts underpin the progress and achievements of the project. Without their diverse contributions, the scope and impact of scientific research would be significantly diminished.

The last author

In the listing of authors on a scientific paper, the final position carries a unique significance. It is typically occupied by the senior researcher, often the head of the laboratory or the principal investigator who has supervised the project. While they might not be involved in the day-to-day aspects of the work, they provide overarching guidance, mentorship, and often the resources necessary for the project's fruition.

The last author's role is multidimensional, often balancing the responsibilities of project management, funding acquisition, and mentorship. They guide the research's direction, help troubleshoot problems, and provide intellectual input to the project's design and interpretation of results. Additionally, they usually play a key role in the drafting and revision of the manuscript, providing critical feedback and shaping the narrative.

In academia, the last author position is a symbol of leadership and scientific maturity. It indicates that the researcher has progressed from being a hands-on contributor to someone who can guide a team, secure funding, and deliver significant research projects. Being the last author can have substantial implications for a researcher's career, signaling their ability to oversee successful projects and mentor the next generation of scientists.

However, along with prestige comes significant responsibility. The last author is often seen as the guarantor of the work. They are held accountable for the overall integrity of the study, and in cases where errors or issues arise, they are expected to take the lead in addressing them.

The convention of the last author as the senior researcher is common in many scientific disciplines, especially in the life and biomedical sciences. However, it's important to note that this is not a universal standard. In some fields, authors may be listed purely in the order of contribution or alphabetically. Therefore, an understanding of the specific norms and expectations of your scientific field is essential when considering author order.

In sum, the position of the last author, much like that of the first author, holds both honor and responsibility, reflecting a leadership role that goes beyond mere intellectual contribution to include mentorship, management, and accountability.

Formatting author names

When it comes to scientific publishing, details matter, and one such detail is the correct formatting of author names. While it may seem like a minor concern compared to the intellectual challenges of research, the proper formatting of author names is crucial for several reasons. It ensures correct attribution of work, facilitates accurate citation, and helps avoid confusion among researchers in the same field. This section will delve deeper into the conventions for formatting author names, offering guidance to ensure clarity and consistency in your scientific papers.

Typically, each author's full first name, middle initial(s), and last name are listed. It's crucial that the author's name is presented consistently across all their publications to ensure their work is correctly attributed and easily discoverable.

Here is a basic example following a common convention:

• Standard convention: John D. Smith

However, conventions can vary depending on cultural naming practices. In many Western cultures, the first name is the given name, followed by the middle initial(s), and then the family name. On the other hand, in many East Asian cultures, the family name is listed first.

Here is an example following this convention:

• Asian convention: Wang Xiao Long

When there are multiple authors, their names are separated by commas. The word "and" usually precedes the final author's name.

Here's how this would look:

• John D. Smith, Jane A. Doe, and Richard K. Jones

However, author name formatting can differ among journals. Some may require initials instead of full first names, or they might have specific guidelines for handling hyphenated surnames or surnames with particles (e.g., "de," "van," "bin"). Therefore, it's always important to check the specific submission guidelines of the journal to which you're submitting your paper.

Moreover, the formatting should respect each author's preferred presentation of their name, especially if it deviates from conventional Western naming patterns. As the scientific community becomes increasingly diverse and global, it's essential to ensure that each author's identity is accurately represented.

In conclusion, the proper formatting of author names is a vital detail in scientific publishing, ensuring correct attribution and respect for each author's identity. It may seem a minor point in the grand scheme of a research project, but getting it right is an essential part of good academic practice.

The concept of authorship in scientific papers goes well beyond just listing the names of those involved in a research project. It carries critical implications for recognition, responsibility, and career progression, reflecting a complex nexus of contribution, collaboration, and intellectual leadership. Understanding the different roles, correctly ordering the authors, and appropriately formatting the names are essential elements of academic practice that ensure the rightful attribution of credit and uphold the integrity of scientific research.

Navigating the terrain of authorship involves managing both objective and subjective elements, spanning from the universally acknowledged conventions to the nuances particular to different scientific disciplines. Whether it's acknowledging the pivotal role of the first author who carried the project from the ground up, recognizing the valuable contributions of middle authors who provided key expertise, or highlighting the mentorship and leadership role of the last author, each position is an integral piece in the mosaic of scientific authorship.

Furthermore, beyond the order of authors, the meticulous task of correctly formatting the author names should not be underestimated. This practice is an exercise in precision, respect for individual identity, and acknowledgement of cultural diversity, reflecting the global and inclusive nature of contemporary scientific research.

As scientific exploration continues to move forward as a collective endeavor, clear and equitable authorship practices will remain crucial. These practices serve not only to ensure that credit is assigned where it's due but also to foster an environment of respect and transparency. Therefore, each member of the scientific community, from fledgling researchers to seasoned scientists, would do well to master the art and science of authorship in academic publishing. After all, it is through this collective recognition and collaboration that we continue to expand the frontiers of knowledge.

Header image by Jon Tyson .

Logo Left Content

Logo Right Content

Stanford University School of Medicine blog

Who’s on first? Duking out scientific paper authorship order

It's been over 80 years, but Abbott and Costello's famous comedic skit " Who's on First" lives on in our collective memories. Their increasingly ridiculous conversation about baseball and the name of the player on first base can still reliably produce a giggle in many circles.

But in the lab , questions about order can be anything but a laughing matter -- particularly when it comes to the list of authors on a scientific paper. Many nonscientists don't realize that, traditionally, the most important places on the roster are the first -- indicating the person who conceived of and performed most of the research discussed in the paper -- and the last -- a hallowed place reserved for the senior scientist in whose laboratory the research was conducted.

In the biomedical research world, having many "first authorship" papers is largely seen as an indication of a scientist's skill and tenacity; researchers with many "senior authorship" papers often garner a reputation of strong leadership and high productivity.

But as the National Institutes of Health and other funders increasingly reward collaborative research, and scientific projects grow more complex, determining authorship order is becoming less clear. Some are even venturing outside the lab to do so.

Authorship smash down

Recently Stanford researcher Garry Nolan , PhD, tweeted about an unconventional way two researchers in his laboratory who had each contributed equally to a study decided who should be listed first on the print version of the paper.

The researchers, graduate students Bokai Zhu and Yunhao Bai , played three games of Mario Kart's Super Smash Bros. ; the winner, Bai, was awarded top billing, and was permitted to list himself as the first author on his resume (called a curriculum vitae , or CV, in science circles). A footnote to the authorship list notes that Zhu and Bai contributed equally to the paper's contents and can consider themselves co-first authors on their CVs.

"All the important results are already in the paper itself . We thought, why not use this opportunity to have some fun?" Zhu said, in a recent conversation with my colleague Lisa Kim for her new video series " 90 seconds with Lisa Kim ."

"As science has become more multidisciplinary and collaborative, it becomes more difficult to determine who should receive credit for a group's findings," Nolan said. "It's not unusual for a scientific paper to have a dozen or more authors from multiple labs or institutions, and assigning authorship order becomes increasingly difficult."

In response, scientists like Zhu and Bai are becoming more creative. As on their paper, footnotes are increasingly used in print or online versions of a study to indicate authors (both first and last) who contributed equally to the paper's findings. "There's also a movement toward agreeing that each co-first or co-last author may list themselves as first or last author on their own CV," Nolan said.

Agreeing to ... agree

But as long as the "first or last" rubric remains, researchers are going to have to come to ways to agree. Much hinges on the ability of the authors to collaboratively decide whose careers could benefit the most from the extra boost. Sometimes that might mean that a lab leader cedes last authorship to a senior lab member who will soon be launching a job hunt, or for a postdoctoral researcher to allow a soon-to-graduate PhD student to list themselves first.

"To me, a key purpose of an academic institution is to advance the careers of your students, teach them the ways of science, and hopefully impart some wisdom while also doing important scientific work," Nolan said. "If a funding institution is going to demand cooperation and collaboration, we as scientists need to adapt. Right now, it depends on people being gracious."

Or, perhaps, a friendly video game smackdown? Maybe next time they'll play Mario Super Sluggers , instead!

Photo by  Ryan Quintal

Popular posts

Fear, loathing and pickleball? Serious injuries do happen — here’s how to avoid them

The inflammation connection: Kids with PANS at high risk for arthritis

The Ethics of Manuscript Authorship: Best Practices for Attribution

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), has established four criteria that each author of a paper should meet. This article and our free white paper, Credit Where Credit Is Due, detail and explore these criteria.

Updated on July 25, 2013

Authorship is becoming an increasingly complicated issue as research collaborations proliferate, the importance of citations for tenure and grants persists, and no consensus on a definition is reached. This issue is fraught with ethical implications because clearly conveying who is responsible for published work is integral to scientific integrity.

Many journals currently adhere to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which has established four criteria that each author of a paper should meet:

• Significant involvement in study conception/design, data collection, or data analysis/interpretation;
• Involvement in drafting or revising manuscript;
• Approval of final version of manuscript for publication; and
• Responsibility for accuracy and integrity of all aspects of research.

Download our free white paper on authorship for a copy of these criteria and our suggestions for choosing authors appropriately.

Moreover, by the ICMJE definition, authors “should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work...[and] have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.” Based on this description and the fourth criterion, authorship implies not only past individual contribution to a research project but also ongoing joint accountability for that project. As a result, authors may share fame or infamy, depending on the validity of the work.

The ICMJE also notes that an author must have made “substantive intellectual contributions” to the manuscript. Creative input is thus more eligible for authorship than purely mechanical work. A technician merely acquiring data, a senior researcher only obtaining funding or providing supervision, a collaborator solely providing a new reagent or samples, and other research-related but non-creative tasks do not merit authorship on their own. These individuals and their contributions could be cited in an acknowledgments section instead.

Despite this clearly outlined definition, numerous issues (including ethical concerns) have arisen regarding authorship attribution. These issues have emerged partly because many journals continue to adhere to their own guidelines or to various modified versions of the ICMJE criteria (see, for example, Table 2 in this EMBO reports article ) and partly because the ICMJE guidelines may be insufficient, as argued at the 2012 International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution . A selection of topics that is specifically pertinent to academia is as follows:

Contribution ambiguity

The specific roles of individual authors in a research project are not always clear, especially when a manuscript is attributed to a large group. To address this problem, several journals (such as PNAS ) require public disclosure of the specific contributions of each author. Some have also suggested the establishment of a database or the use of existing research community networks (such as ResearchGate ) to track contributions. This tracking is particularly relevant because scholarly output is increasingly defined by metrics beyond paper citations (also known as altmetrics ). To further clarify the roles of authors and encourage integrity, certain journals require a public guarantor for each article, or an author who takes responsibility for the entire research project, including conception, data acquisition and analysis, and publication. Ambiguity surrounding authorship may also arise from the publication of papers by researchers with the same name but could be minimized by the use of an ORCID identifier .

Authorship order

The meaning of the list order of authors on a paper varies between fields. In certain areas, the list is alphabetical, whereas in others, the convention includes citing every person who contributed in some way to the project (which may conflict with the ICMJE guidelines). In many disciplines, the author order indicates the magnitude of contribution, with the first author adding the most value and the last author representing the most senior, predominantly supervisory role. In this model, disputes may arise regarding who merits sole or shared first authorship. The Committee on Publication Ethics recommends that researchers discuss authorship order from project initiation to manuscript submission, revising as necessary, and record each decision in writing. Furthermore, contributions could be quantified, such as based on a points system (subscription required) , to facilitate authorship decisions.

Honorary authorship

Honorary authorship is given to an individual despite a lack of substantial contributions to a research project. One form, gift authorship , is bestowed out of respect for or gratitude to an individual. For example, in Asian cultures, departmental heads or senior researchers may be added to a paper regardless of their involvement in the research. Another form, guest authorship , may be used for multiple purposes, including to increase the apparent quality of a paper by adding a well-known name or to conceal a paper's industry ties by including an academic author. Additional issues regarding honorary authorship are the inclusion of an author on a manuscript without his or her permission (which is often prevented by journal guidelines that require the consent of all authors) and coercive authorship , which typically consists of a senior researcher (such as a dissertation advisor) forcing a junior researcher (such as a graduate student) to include a gift or guest author.

Honorary authorship is a major ethical issue in scholarly publication, as this dishonest practice was found in approximately 18% of articles in six medical journals in 2008. From the standpoint of journals, lists of specific contributions may help to minimize this practice, as could reminders that all authors are accountable for the integrity of a published work. The institution of double-blind peer review could also decrease the influence of authors' prominence in the field on journal acceptance. At research institutions, guidelines could equate honorary authorship with research misconduct. Additionally, the donation of resources to a project without the expectation of automatic authorship could be encouraged by the use of contributions, including those listed in acknowledgments sections, as a measure of output, as discussed above.

In all cases described here, more universal standards for manuscript authorship will be critical for fostering good practices. As you write and review manuscripts, remember the best practices found in this white paper , and consider ways to bring authorship credit and accountability to the attention of your colleagues and readers.

Michaela Panter, PhD

See our "Privacy Policy"

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 26 September 2012

Authorship: Who's on first?

• Amber Dance 1  

Nature volume  489 ,  pages 591–593 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

46k Accesses

68 Citations

215 Altmetric

Metrics details

When scientists collaborate on an experiment and a paper, it can be hard to decide who gets the credit and how much.

Stephen Kosslyn first started to consider how author lists come together when he found himself mediating a dispute. A postdoc and a graduate student each wanted to be listed as the first author on a study. “They both had a case,” recalls Kosslyn. “It got heated.”

Disagreements often happen when contributors put in similar amounts of effort on different aspects of a project, says Kosslyn, a psychologist at Stanford University in California. For example, one person might have developed the idea for the project and the other performed most of the data analysis. “The force of the dispute usually revolves around the feeling that whatever they did was more important than what the other person did,” says Kosslyn.

Such disputes are common. “As authorship is our academic currency, it tends to be a hot-button topic,” says Karen Peterson, scientific ombudsman at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. She says that one-fifth of the disputes she adjudicates concern authorship. Similar conflicts are among the most common issues mediated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), says Virginia Barbour, the organization's chairwoman and chief editor of PLoS Medicine in Cambridge, UK.

Authorship disagreements can be mitigated with careful discussions, explicit lab guidelines and a good understanding of authorship practices in one's field. There is no perfect approach, but deciding on who gets an authorship credit, and how they are ranked, is a crucial part of doing science responsibly.

Precise statistics on authorship disputes are hard to come by, says Mario Biagioli, a science historian at the University of California, Davis, who has studied authorship. Scientists may be reluctant to admit that they have demanded undeserved authorship or otherwise subverted the system, and the US Office of Research Integrity does not track such disagreements because they are not considered scientific misconduct, says Biagioli, who co-edited the book Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science (Routledge, 2002). However, in a 2005 survey 1 of researchers who had received a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), 10% of respondents admitted to assigning authorship “inappropriately”.

Credit confusion

Questions of who deserves credit for a paper are a fairly recent phenomenon, says Biagioli. Once upon a time, a paper had one author, maybe two. But with modern big science and large collaborations, a study might have hundreds or even thousands of authors — as in the case of the ATLAS experiment 2 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland.

And what authorship means varies by scientific discipline. For example, in particle physics, hundreds of researchers may contribute to the development and maintenance of a single piece of equipment, such as an accelerator. At big physics labs such as CERN, everyone who was working at the lab when the discovery was made gets a slot on the author list — even if they haven't seen the paper, says Biagioli. The authors are usually listed alphabetically, regardless of how much they contributed.

In the biological sciences, by contrast, the author list is often strictly ranked. The top spot is at the end of the list, where the principal investigator gets credit for running the lab. The student or postdoc who actually did the work goes first. As for the authors in the middle, it is hard to tell whether they participated a lot or a little, says Biagioli.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has developed authorship guidelines that are used by many journals and institutions. These rules state that to be listed as an author, each researcher must meet three key criteria: they must have been involved in designing the project, collecting data or analysing the results; they must have participated in drafting or revising the manuscript; and they must have approved the final, published paper. Many universities that have their own guidelines base them on the ICMJE's wording, says Biagioli.

Kosslyn has his own definition: the crucial element, he says, is creativity. For example, a researcher could work with study participants in the lab, but just be following a protocol. “Anybody could have run the subjects, so running the subjects is not enough,” says Kosslyn. To earn authorship, the researcher would be intellectually engaged: they might point out a feature of the data that leads the team to reshape the experiment. The paper wouldn't look the same without them.

The author in question

COPE recommends that researchers decide who will be an author and what order they will be listed in before they even conduct experiments, and that the group revisits the author list as a project evolves. A handshake isn't enough to seal the deal — researchers should keep author agreements in writing.

Whenever they occur, authorship discussions need not be confrontational (see 'Aggravation-free authorship' ). Mark Groudine, deputy director of the Hutchinson Center, says that the parties in a dispute should sit down and try to talk the matter over. “People get so locked into their positions that they don't make the effort to understand the other person's point of view,” he says, “and therefore they don't understand why it's a dispute.”

If talking doesn't work, Groudine suggests asking the opinion of an unbiased third party. For example, on one project he collaborated with another principal investigator. When it came to writing up the paper, both wanted to be senior author. They invited two trusted colleagues to mediate.

The jury awarded the senior slot to Groudine, but he felt uneasy about it. He suggested that the other investigator be the corresponding author, who communicates with the journal and any scientists who enquire about the work. “I consider corresponding author as equivalent, almost, to senior author,” says Groudine. Co-senior authorship is also an option, he adds.

But sharing credit too broadly can be risky. Sometimes authors are listed more as a courtesy than because they made a key contribution, says Chris Sneden, an astronomer at the University of Texas at Austin, who will step down from his post as editor of The Astrophysical Journal Letters at the end of this year. Accepting courtesy authorship is a “double-edged sword”, he says. If the paper becomes famous, “every author gets to claim credit”. But if it becomes infamous, everyone gets a share of the blame. Researchers need to be aware of the potential risks of adding their names to manuscripts that they know little about (see 'Ghosts and guests' ).

Gerald Schatten, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, learned that lesson when he lent his good name to a high-profile but eventually discredited stem-cell paper by Woo Suk Hwang, then at Seoul National University. Schatten was investigated by his university, which cleared him of misconduct, but chastised him for 'research misbehaviour' because he failed to check the quality of the science 3 .

The decision to accept courtesy authorship is a matter of preference, says Sneden. “Personally, if I haven't actually contributed something to the specific paper, I just won't have my name on it,” he says. In that case, he politely tells his colleagues that he shouldn't be on the list. “I make sure they understand that it's not a negative reflection on the paper,” he says.

Taken in vain

Sometimes, the recipient of this courtesy may not get the chance to bow out. A researcher who has been added to the author list without their permission might be surprised to see their name when the paper comes out, says Sneden, or even angry if they don't agree with the conclusions. Those who find themselves unexpectedly an author on a paper that they would prefer not to be associated with should contact the editor of the journal, he recommends. The editor will get in touch with the study's corresponding author, and decide whether a corrigendum is necessary to explain that the author in question was not involved with the work.

These kinds of conflicts shouldn't occur. Corresponding authors are expected to have the approval of their co-authors — but some don't realize it. “People, do you read the publication agreement that you sign?” Sneden asks his colleagues. (Often, the answer is no.)

Increasingly, journals are attempting to keep authors in line by asking for details on who did what. In cases of fraud, those descriptions should lay the blame at the right person's door.

Biagioli agrees that delineating each person's contribution should help, but he says that the descriptions are frequently too brief. As an example, he cites the study published this month in Nature by the ENCODE Project Consortium 4 . It ascribes generic tasks such as “data analysis”, “writing” or “scientific management” to large sets of authors, making it impossible to tell, for example, who analysed which data. When scientists sit down to plan a project — and ideally draft the author list — they should also decide how to describe everyone's contributions, says Biagioli. The relevant details will probably vary by discipline, he adds.

In his own lab, Kosslyn has instituted a scheme to make authorship requirements explicit from the outset. As he listened to his student and postdoc arguing their cases several years ago, he started to develop what eventually became a 1,000-point system. The researchers who come up with the idea get 250 points, split between them according to their contribution; writing the paper is worth the same. A further 500 points are available for designing and running the experiment and analysing the data. Researchers who score at least 100 points make the author list, with each person's point total determining their rank.

Disagreements still occur; in those cases, Kosslyn decides how the points are allocated. When the balance of contributions is unclear, he does his best. However, it rarely comes to tallying points. “Usually it's very obvious what the order's going to be,” he says.

In recent years, no disputes have ever risen to the level of the argument that led to the point system. “That,” says Kosslyn, “was the last heated dispute we had in the lab.”

Box 1: Aggravation-free authorship

When many scientists work together, determining authorship isn't always easy. Here are some tips for settling the line-up.

Make sure that you choose collaborators with whom you can work well.

Discuss authorship early, and keep doing so often as a project evolves. Put it in writing.

When there are disputes, first try to talk it out amicably and understand the other person's point of view. For example, try to work out how the idea first came about.

If you must approach your supervisor about an authorship decision that you don't like, keep the tone inquisitive, not accusatory. Explain that you want to understand how authorship was decided.

If a contributor's authorship is in question, it can help to consider what the paper would have looked like without their efforts, and whether someone else could have made the same contribution.

Familiarize yourself with your institution's or journal's authorship guidelines, or those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Use them to back up your case.

Be prepared to compromise or share credit.

If you can't agree among yourselves, engage a supervisor, trusted colleagues or an ombudsman to investigate the matter and make a recommendation. A.D.

Box 2: Ghosts and guests

Authorship can be misused when there is money to be made. Medical journals contain a mixture of original scientific findings and veiled advertisements for drugs, and scientists and physicians must read papers critically to understand a medicine's true merits, says Alastair Matheson, a biomedical-research consultant in Toronto, Canada.

Some pharmaceutical companies make drugs and run clinical trials, then engage medical writers to draft manuscripts. These contributors are often ghostwriters not listed as authors on the paper. Instead, the company's marketing team finds a big academic name to headline the project — even if this guest author makes no contribution to the paper apart from scanning the final version. Companies sometimes use the same technique to produce reviews promoting their latest medicines, says Joseph Ross, a physician who studies health policy at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. One survey 5 found that guests and ghosts haunted 21% of papers published in six leading medical journals in 2008.

“This vast production line of information about drugs is passed off as the work of academics rather than the work of industry,” says Matheson. The companies get to advertise their products; the ghostwriters receive a pay cheque; and the academics get another line on their CVs. But the patients and the integrity of science all lose out, says Matheson.

For example, Merck, a pharmaceutical company based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, minimized reporting of the risks observed for its painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib) until the drug was taken off the market in 2004. Ross was a consultant to people who had taken Vioxx and developed heart problems, or their families, in two court cases against Merck, and he saw some of the company's internal documents 6 . “We were sort of shocked to find pretty rampant evidence that a lot of the trials were ghostwritten,” says Ross. “We would stumble across a full draft of a manuscript that just said, 'external author?'.”

There are ways to identify traces of guests and ghosts in a manuscript: “Check the small print,” says Matheson. That is where a medical writer or communications company may be acknowledged. Funding from a drug-maker is another tell-tale sign. “These are pointers to the likelihood that this is something originated and planned by industry prior to the involvement of the headline authors,” says Matheson. Author disclosures are less helpful, he adds, because academic authors may list several affiliations and it is difficult to tell which commercial relationship is relevant.

With commerce and medicine intimately intertwined, it would be impractical for academics to cut ties with companies, says Matheson. But, he adds, when academics are offered guest authorship, “I would advise them, for the sake of their reputation, to do two things”. First, he says, be more than a guest: make sure that your contribution is author-level. Second, insist that company employees involved in the study are also listed as authors.

Matheson says it is the responsibility of journals to make participation by drug-makers more apparent. He would like to see papers marked right at the top with 'commercial article'. He also suggests that journals use labels to indicate who funded the study, and what drug it supports. A.D.

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435 , 737–738 (2005).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

The ATLAS Collaboration J. Instrum. 3 , S08003 (2008).

Maris, E. & Check, E. Nature 439 , 768–769 (2006).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

The ENCODE Project Consortium Nature 489 , 57–74 (2012).

Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B. & DeAngelis, C. D. Br. Med. J. 343 , D6128 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S. & Krumholz, H. M. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 299 , 1800–1812 (2008).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Amber Dance is a freelance science writer in Los Angeles, California.,

Amber Dance

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

See World View p.475

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Authorship policies

Credit where credit's due

Merck accused of disguising its role in research

Taking the industry road

Nature authorship policy

Related external links

ICJME authorship guidelines

Stephen Kosslyn's authorship criteria

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dance, A. Authorship: Who's on first?. Nature 489 , 591–593 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a

Download citation

Published : 26 September 2012

Issue Date : 27 September 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.

• Reint Meursinge Reynders
• Gerben ter Riet
• Mario Malički

Systematic Reviews (2022)

Gender disparities in pediatric research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships

• Katja Böhme
• Doris Klingelhöfer
• Michael H. K. Bendels

Pediatric Research (2022)

Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?

Scientometrics (2019)

Text Recycling in Scientific Writing

• Cary Moskovitz

Science and Engineering Ethics (2019)

The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains

• David Johann
• Sabrina Jasmin Mayer

Minerva (2019)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

What's the Right Order of Authors in Research Papers?

Learn the conventions and factors that determine the order of authors in research papers, including roles, responsibilities, and resolving disputes.

Jun 11, 2024

In academic publishing , the order of authors on a research paper is very important. It’s not just a formality, it shows how much each researcher contributed equally to the study, what they were responsible for, and how much credit they should get.

Where an author’s name appears can have a big impact on their career, ability to get funding, and professional standing.

That’s why it’s essential for researchers, especially those working on projects with others, to understand the rules and factors that decide the order of first authorship there, including the significance of each author’s contribution.

Factors that determine author order

• Level of contribution: The most significant contributor to the research usually takes the first author position.
• Role of the corresponding author: The corresponding author, who may or may not be the first author, handles communication with the journal and readers.
• Order of co-authors: Co-authors are typically listed in order of their relative contributions, which various criteria can determine.
• Amount of work: The amount of work put into the study by each author can influence their position in the author list.
• Importance of role: The significance of each author’s role in the research can impact their placement in the author order.
• Seniority: In some cases, the seniority of the authors may be considered when determining the order.
• Principal investigator: The principal investigator, often a senior author, provides intellectual input, designs the study and protocols, supervises several projects, and acts as the corresponding author responsible for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.
• Alphabetical listing: Some research teams may choose to list authors alphabetically.

Understanding these factors is essential for ensuring fair attribution and publication process and avoiding potential conflicts arising from authorship decisions. It is also important to understand each author's contribution in determining the order, as this helps in distinguishing between authorship roles and adhering to guidelines for fair authorship practices.

Why is the order of authors significant?

Scientific publication author order matters first authors most in research papers for several reasons such papers:

Credit attribution:

The order of authors reflects the level of contribution and responsibility each researcher has each individual’s contribution has made to the study.

The first author is typically recognized as the primary contributor, while subsequent authors are acknowledged for their smaller roles. In some cases, projects require different expertise, making it difficult to determine a larger contribution, leading to the concept of 'co-first authors'.

This practice is common in various fields and ensures that authors' contributions from multiple significant contributors receive appropriate recognition.

Career advancement:

Being the first author of papers listed as the first or corresponding author can significantly impact a researcher’s career prospects, especially when they are the senior author. It demonstrates their ability to lead a study and make substantial contributions to their field, which can be crucial for securing funding, promotions, and tenure.

Professional reputation:

The placement of an author's name on a research paper can influence how their work is perceived by colleagues and the scientific community. Being consistently listed author of scientific papers, or as a first or corresponding author can help establish a researcher's reputation as an expert in their field.

Funding opportunities:

Authorship order can affect a researcher's ability to secure grants and funding for future projects. Funding agencies often consider an appl

I can't last the author's publication record and authorship positions when making decisions about allocating resources.

Collaboration and networking:

The order of authors can also reflect the nature of collaborations and professional relationships within the research team. Being listed as a co-author can help senior authors foster connections with middle authors and open up opportunities for future collaborations.

Given these implications, researchers need to understand and navigate the conventions surrounding authors to ensure fair attribution, maintain professional relationships, and advance their careers in academia. In collaborative research projects , the corresponding author plays a crucial role in coordinating contributions from different researchers and ensuring the integrity of the multi-author paper.

Types of Authors

First Author and Co-First Authors

The first author, also known as the lead author, is the senior researcher, who has made the most significant contributions to the study. This author's contribution includes conceptualizing the research question, designing and conducting experiments, analyzing data, and writing the manuscript.

Responsibilities

• Providing leadership and direction for the research project
• Designing and conducting experiments or studies
• Analyzing and interpreting data
• Writing the initial draft of the manuscript
• Ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the research
• Communicating with co-authors
• Making the most significant contributions to the research
• Being primarily responsible for the conception and design of the study
• Performing the majority of the experiments or data collection
• Taking the lead in analyzing and interpreting the data

Corresponding Author

The corresponding author handles communication with the journal editor and readers after the paper is published. This includes responding to inquiries, providing additional information, and handling post-publication issues.

• Serving as the primary contact for communication with the journal
• Ensuring that all necessary submission requirements are met
• Responding to editorial inquiries and decisions
• Communicating with co-authors regarding the manuscript status
• Handling post-publication correspondence
• Addressing any issues or concerns after publication

Relationship with First Author

The first author and corresponding author may be the same person or different co-authors co-corresponding authors, depending on the research team journal editor's decision.

Co-Authors and Senior Author

Co-authors are researchers who have made significant contributions to the study but are not the first or corresponding authors of the final manuscript.

• Providing expertise and support in their specific areas of contribution
• Assisting with experimental design, data collection, or analysis
• Reviewing and providing feedback on manuscript drafts
• Ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the research
• Communicating with the first author and corresponding author
• Agreeing to the final version of the manuscript before submission
• Making a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research
• Being involved in drafting or revising the manuscript for important intellectual content
• Approving the final version of the manuscript to be published
• Agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work

The order of co-authors is typically determined by their relative contributions to the study, based on factors such as time invested, the significance of the co-first’ contributions last author's name, and expertise.

In fields like theoretical computer science, authors are generally listed alphabetically to signify equal contributions to the ideas, and advisors typically do not add themselves as authors even if they make minor contributions.

Resolving Authorship Disputes

A. common causes of authorship disputes.

Authorship disputes can arise from various factors, such as disagreements about the significance of individual contributions, misunderstandings regarding authorship criteria, and lack of clear communication among team members.

Power imbalances and seniority issues within the research team can also contribute to conflicts, as well as pressure to publish and advance careers. Cultural differences in norms and expectations surrounding authorship and peer review can further complicate these situations.

B. Strategies for preventing authorship conflicts

To prevent authorship disputes, it is crucial for research teams must have each team to have open discussions about authorship roles and expectations early in the research process. Establishing clear guidelines for authorship criteria and responsibilities can help ensure that all team members understand what is required to be listed as an author.

Regular communication about project progress and individual contributions can also help maintain transparency and address potential issues before they escalate. Documenting contributions and decisions that authors contribute to throughout the project can provide a clear record for reference.

Researchers should also be open about any potential conflicts of interest and strive to foster a collaborative and respectful team environment. When needed, seeking guidance from institutional policies or mentors can help navigate authorship questions.

Medical journal editors, following the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, play a crucial role in setting authorship criteria and resolving disputes.

C. Methods for resolving authorship disputes

When authorship disputes arise, the first step should be to refer to the authorship guidelines established at the beginning of the project. Open and honest discussion among all team members is essential to understanding different perspectives and finding a resolution.

If the dispute cannot be resolved internally, seeking mediation from a neutral third party, such as an ombudsperson, publication ethics, or research integrity office, can be helpful. Institutional policies and guidelines may also guide resolving authorship conflicts.

In some cases, alternative forms of acknowledgment, such as a footnote or acknowledgments section, may be appropriate for contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship credit. If the dispute involves violations of research integrity or contractual agreements, legal action may be necessary as a last resort.

Throughout the dispute resolution process, all parties need to maintain a commitment to fairness, integrity, and finding a mutually agreeable solution. By addressing conflicts constructively and professionally, research teams can minimize the negative impact of authorship disputes on their work and relationships.

This article discusses the significance of author order in research papers, highlighting the roles of the first author, corresponding author, second author, and co-authors. It explores various authorship conventions like alphabetical order, contribution-based order, and seniority-based order, noting differences across disciplines and journals.

The article also addresses resolving authorship disputes, emphasizing the importance of preventing conflicts and resolving them effectively. Understanding and adhering to authorship guidelines are crucial for fair credit attribution, maintaining professional integrity, and fostering a positive research environment.

Author order impacts career progression, funding opportunities, and professional reputation. Researchers should familiarize themselves with discipline-specific conventions and criteria to make informed decisions about their contributions and recognition.

The article encourages open communication within research teams to establish clear authorship roles and expectations. Discussing authorship early and regularly, setting guidelines, and documenting decisions can minimize conflicts. A collaborative and respectful team environment is vital for successful research projects and scientific advancement.

In conclusion, understanding the importance of author order and the influencing factors is essential for navigating academic publishing. By staying informed, communicating openly, and following guidelines, researchers can ensure fair recognition of contributions and productive collaborations.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

Type of authors

Authors in research

Recent articles

What is an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?

Aug 1, 2024

Individualized Education Plan

Special Education

IEP Process

Learning Disabilities

Assistive Technology

Noam Chomsky's Theory of Language Acquisition

Aug 5, 2024

What are the Responsibilities of a Cosigner in a Student Loan?

Aug 6, 2024

Financial Aid

College Funding

Cosigner Responsibilities

Student Loans

10 Best Productivity Books

Aug 13, 2024

Productivity Books

Time Management

Efficiency Tips

Self Improvement

Goal Setting

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Does 'order' matter for authorship? [duplicate]

I'm wondering generally how can I identify the authorship of a paper? Some papers might have specific signs such as an asterisk or a dagger after an author's name, but for those who don't have any signs, is the name with first authorship usually listed at first also? Here's an example I found on PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS: https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.230404

Who is the first author, and who are the second of this paper?

Update: I'm asking this question because I want to know if the order of authors matters. Usually the first author is listed in the beginning, but if I want to assign all of my collaborators as the second author (there are 5-6 of them), do I need to worried about the order their names appear on the paper? Thanks for the help!

• 4 Why do you care? –  TimRias Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 20:13
• 1 @mmeent I'm new to academia and I'm planning to write my first paper. I want to know if I need to specify the authorship on my paper and if so how I can do that:) –  IGY Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 20:17
• 10 This is field dependent. You should ask your advisor about the conventions in your field. For some papers/fields, you need to actually read a "contributions" section. For others, a footnote or such. –  Buffy Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 20:20
• 7 I am confused by this question. The first author is the first one reading left to right, so Skov. The second is the second one, so Skou. What is the underlying question? –  Azor Ahai -him- Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 20:35
• 2 "but if I want to assign all of my collaborators as the second author" This doesn't make any sense... the second author is the second one in the list. The third author is the third one in the list, and so on. In the field the paper you showed is from, usually this goes in descending order of contribution, until the last author, who is almost always the advisor / person in charge / person who got the grant funding. –  knzhou Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 22:21

2 Answers 2

There are many conventions and they are mostly field dependent. I'll try to list a few of them, along with a bit of the possible reasoning. I'll also give some personal preferences about such questions, but they are, perhaps, influenced by my own education and career.

In pure math and theoretical computer science, authors are generally listed alphabetically. The intent is to say that all contributed equally to the ideas, if not to the (quantity of) work itself. A seemingly minor comment in a meeting can lead to a big insight in a paper. My experience in those fields is that advisors don't add themselves to the list of authors, though I'd guess there are exceptions. Perhaps many. I'm very uncomfortable with a convention that the advisor is always an "author" even if they contribute very little.

My personal practice (math, CS) is that I won't be a co-author with a student on their thesis work, even if I contribute the problem and give them extensive advice along the way. The work that solves the problem is theirs. And while I prefer alphabetical listing of authors in work I contribute to, I've been on at least one paper that followed a different convention since two of the group were the clear drivers of everything in the work. And the person among us who actually put the words in place was not one of the "first" authors, just the best writer.

Note that collegial relationships such as I just described makes it desirable to work with those same authors on future work. So, while I might be a "minor" author on a work, those people are happy to work with me in the future.

In some lab sciences author order is considered very important but the convention varies. In some, the advisor is always listed last in order, but some people assume they did all the "real" work and just carried the other along. In some fields, the advisor is listed first, with the same idea behind it.

In those fields that list advisors on student works it is sometimes justified by noting that the paper may get more visibility if a prominent name is among the authors. The association with that person might also have some value. But such can also be indicated in other fields by having an acknowledgement section, thanking advisors or others who helped but are not authors.

In those fields in which the advisor adds themself by convention, it may make sense or not. If the field, such as a lab science fundamentally depends on grants written by and labs managed by PIs, it may make sense since many of the ideas developed in such a lab may flow from meetings in which the PI is a fundamental participant.

Note, however, that it should be the case that the authors are the ones that contribute ideas to the papers, not just "work". Someone can spend a lot of time and effort on a paper that is actually driven by the ideas of others. But I think that idea is not especially well followed, certainly not universally.

In those fields that worry about and fight over author order, relationships can be destroyed when people bicker over priority. It is, in my view, a selfish attitude.

However, having said all that, looking at a particular paper, it can be difficult to know from the list of authors alone who was the primary driver of the ideas. A few of the authors in a longer list might have been more or less equal contributors. Some fields will explicitly list "co first" authors if they feel it is important, though it may not be obvious from the listing and you might need to get the paper to see if it has a section or note on contributions.

It should also be noted that there are several papers with thousands of "authors". The list of authors is longer than the paper itself. CERN produces such papers, for example, just by the nature of the work there.

I hope I didn't go too far off-topic here, but these are things that I think a new academic should consider. Be generous with your colleagues.

• That's extremely helpful. Thanks a lot for the comprehensive answer:) –  IGY Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 22:39
• 2 One other consideration: authorship credit isn't just a credit. It's a de facto endorsement of the paper, or at least relevant parts of it, and that can occasionally be a liability if the paper has potential for controversy/etc. I doubt this is a big issue in pure math/comp sci, but in my biomed research days I had one senior colleague whose "generosity" with co-author credits extended to putting our names on content that we considered unsound, in a context where legal repercussions were possible. It got ugly. So giving somebody sole authorship is not always a kindness. –  G_B Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 3:40

"Does author order matter" is one of those questions best answered "sometimes". There is variation between fields , and sometimes subfields. Since you're asking about a PRL, I will assume you're asking about conventions in physics. There e.g. high-energy theory tends to use alphabetical order, whereas e.g. condensed matter and AMO do not. You probably know what's the case in your subfield just from reading relevant papers. Assuming alphabetical order isn't used, as has been pointed out in the comments, and assuming no co-first authors etc., the author who's literally listed first (second, third, ..., last) is considered the first (second, third, ..., last) author. The first and last author positions are special - the first author is typically the author who's been the driving force in carrying out a project (often a student or postdoc), while the last author is more likely to be a supervisor or the principal investigator who may have proposed the project. At some point during a career you may transition from having mainly early author positions to more late-author positions.

So what about the positions in-between? Well, there are diminishing returns. Having first-author papers can be a big deal, so the concept of co-first authors (e.g. designated with a footnote along the lines of "these authors contributed equally") is fairly common. However, beyond that, the benefit or perceived difference between being second, third or fourth author is rather small. Often it's possible to pick out who made the second biggest contribution to the project, but further down the list it's hardly an exact science. As a result, physics has not developed any tendencies to listing co-second or co-third authors. (I'm told some other fields have.) Thus there'll be a range of middle authors, but they won't all be called second authors.

As a rule of thumb, junior authors and especially those who contributed most to the results tend to go early in the author list, and supervisors last. In between is an area for people who maybe contributed a smaller part. If you're writing a paper with 5-6 co-authors, and this isn't clear to you, it may be best to ask your advisor what they think the author order should be. Other times it can be useful to just propose an author order and see if people are happy with it. (Again, usually people don't care too much whether they're third or fourth author.) Of course, in reality there's sometimes various "political" pressures that can affect the author order too in ways unrelated to contributions.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged authorship .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How to cite in Chinese
• Cannot compile code against latest stable GeoTools/GeoServer version
• Is there a way to swap my longbow from being a ranger for a shortbow?
• Can I remove duplicate capacitors while merging two modules?
• Is this misleading "convenience fee" legal?
• How to add content security headers in Next.js which are configurable from cms side? where to add?
• Faster simulation of two spins
• How soon to fire rude and chaotic PhD student?
• Is the Garmin Edge 530 still a good choice for a beginner in 2024?
• If God YHWH is “the Angel of the LORD” in the form of pre-incarnate Jesus in the OT, why does He not “rebuke” Satan Himself? (Zechariah 3:2)
• What is this surface feature near Shackleton crater classified as?
• Why don't we observe protons deflecting in J.J. Thomson's experiment?
• Did anyone ever ask Neil Armstrong whether he said "for man" or "for a man?"
• Deriving Fisher's mysterious estimator for the Unseen Species Problem
• Should I be worried about this giant crack?
• Who said "If you don't do politics, politics will do you"?
• Is sudoku only one puzzle?
• Constructing a specific 2-variable function taking integer arguments whose value is odd/even only when arguments are equal
• Is "UN law" a thing?
• Should I be able to see light from a IR Led with my own eyes?
• For applying to a STEM research position at a U.S. research university, should a resume include a photo?
• The twin prime problem and the Jurkat-Richert Theorem
• How can flyby missions work?
• Accents on abbreviations of words

ORI  Introduction  to RCR: Chapter 9. Authorship and Publication

• was intimately involved in the conception and design of the research,
• assumed responsibility for data collection and interpretation,
• participated in drafting the publication, and
• approved the final version of the publication.
• the accuracy of the data,
• the names listed as authors (all deserve authorship and no one has been neglected),
• approval of the final draft by all authors, and
• handling all correspondence and responding to inquiries.

ICJME Statement on Authorship

Email Updates

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

A Guide to Authorship in Research and Scholarly Publishing

Scientific and academic authorship in research publishing is a critical part of a researcher’s career. However, the concept of authorship in research p ublication can be confusing for early career researchers, who often find it difficult to assess whether their or others’ contribution to a project are enough to warrant authorship. Today, there are more opportunities than ever to collaborate with researchers, not just across the globe but also across different disciplines and even those outside academia. This rapid growth in the number of global research collaborations, and has also led to an increase in the number of authors per paper. 1 For instance, a paper that was published on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN set the record for the largest author list with over 5,000 authors. 2 Such cases act as catalysts for ongoing discussions among the research community about authorship in research and who should and who shouldn’t be credited and held accountable for published research.  

Table of Contents

So how do you define authorship in research?

The most common definition of authorship in research is the one established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to ICMJE’s guidelines, to be acknowledged as an author, a researcher should have met all of the following criteria. An author would have made major contributions to the research idea or study design, or data collection and analysis. They would have been part of the process of writing and revising the research manuscript and would be called on to give final approval on the version being published. Finally, an author must ensure the research is done ethically and accurately and should be willing to stand up and defend their work as needed.  

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the best time to decide authorship in research , in terms of who should be named authors and in what order , is before the research project is initiated. It recommends researchers create and keep written author agreements and to revisit the author list as the project evolves. 3 Consequently, any changes authorship in research either in a researcher’s level of involvement, or the addition or exclusion of members during the project must be approved by all involved and must reflect in the author byline.

Understanding the difference between author and contributor roles

Given the constant increase in scholarly publishing and the continuing pressures to “publish or perish,” many researchers are choosing to participate in multi-author projects. This makes it harder to decide on authorship in research as one needs to differentiate between authors, co-authors, and contributors and this often leads to confusion over accountabilities and entitlements.  

• Lead authors or first authors in publication are those who undertake original research and also drafts and edits the research manuscript. They also play a major role in journal submission and must review and agree on the corrections submitted by all the authors.  
• Co-authors are those who make a major contribution to and are also equally responsible for the research results; they work hand in hand with lead authors to help them create and revise the research paper for journal submission.  
• Corresponding authors are those who sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors and manage all the correspondence around the article. They are tasked with ensuring ethical guidelines are followed, author affiliations and contact details are correct, and that the authors are listed in the right order.  
• Contributors are those who may have provided valuable resources and assistance with planning and conducting the research but may not have written or edited the research paper. While not assigned authorship in research papers, they are typically listed at the end of the article along with a precise description of each person’s contribution.  

Getting the order of listing authors right

The order of authorship in research being published plays an important role for scientific merit; probably as important to a researcher’s career as the number of papers they published. However, the practice of accrediting positions when deciding authorship in research differs greatly between different research streams and often becomes a bone of contention among authors.  

There are some common formats used to determine author listing in research. One common format is when authors are generally listed in the order of their contributions, with the main author of the paper being listed at the end. This honor is typically reserved for the head of the department in which the research was carried out. This kind of listing sometimes creates angst among authors, as they feel that the order does not reflect the significance of their contributions. Another common format is one where authors are listed alphabetically. While this might seem like a more equitable solution when listing authorship in research , it has its own disadvantages. If the main author’s name begins with a letter late in the alphabet, it is very likely to be overlooked when the paper is cited by others, clearly not a very happy scenario for the main author.  

Unfortunately, globally and across research arenas, there is still no uniform understanding or system for the ordering of author names on research papers. And journals do not normally step in to arbitrate such disputes on authorship in research . Individual authors and contributors are expected to evaluate their role in a project and attribute authorship in research papers in keeping with set publication standards. Clearly, the responsibility falls entirely on authors to discuss and agree on the best way to list authors.  

Avoiding unethical authorship in research  

Correctly conveying who is responsible for published scientific research is at the very core of scientific integrity. However, despite clearly outlined guidelines and definitions, scholarly publishing continues to be plagued by numerous issues and ethical concerns regarding the attribution of authorship in research . According to The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), 4 instances of unethical authorship in research papers include:

• Changing the order of authors in an unjustified and improper way
• Using personal authority to add someone as an author without their contributing to the work
• Eliminating contributor names from later publications
• Adding a name as author without the person’s consent

A uthors need to be aware of and understand the nuances of ethical authorship in research papers to avoid confusion, conflict and ill-will among the co-authors and contributors. While researchers receive recognition and credit for their intellectual work, they are also held accountable for what they publish. It is important to remember that the primary responsibility of research authors is to preserve scientific integrity, which can only happen if research is conducted and documented ethically.  

• Mazzocchi F. Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. EMBO Reports, June 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549017/
• Castelvecchi, D. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature, May 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17567
• Dance, A. Authorship: Who’s on first?. Nature, September 2012. https://www.nature.com/articles/nj7417-591a
• Unethical Authorship; How to Avoid? Blog – Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development, February 2020. https://icndbm.cikd.ca/unethical-authorship-how-to-avoid/

Related Posts

What are the Best Research Funding Sources

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Plast Surg
• v.43(2); Jul-Dec 2010

Authorship issue explained

Surajit bhattacharya.

Editor, IJPS E-mail: ni.oc.oohay@hbtijarus

When it comes to the fact that who should be an author and who should not be offered ghost authorship, it seem we are all in agreement.[ 1 ] Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on (c) final revision of the version to be published. Conditions (a), (b), and (c) must all are met.

However, when it comes to the sequence of authorship there seems to be a grey zone and exploitation at both ends of the spectrum. We have come across aggrieved Unit Chiefs and displeased residents in almost equal numbers. It is important for young authors to understand that there are two positions that count, the first author and the last author. Attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when one is young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As one’s career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from one’s Unit, he/she is the main person responsible for its contents, and a younger colleague has made major contributions to the paper, hence he/she is designated as the first author. The guidelines here are not as well defined as for authorship in general, Riesenberg and Lundberg[ 2 ] have made certain very important and simple suggestions to decide the sequence of authorship:

• The first author should be that person who contributed most to the work, including writing of the manuscript
• The sequence of authors should be determined by the relative overall contributions to the manuscript.
• It is common practice to have the senior author appear last, sometimes regardless of his or her contribution. The senior author, like all other authors, should meet all criteria for authorship.
• The senior author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the research student has not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The senior author then becomes the corresponding author, but should the student be the first author? Some supervisors put their students first, others put their own names first. Perhaps it should be decided on the absolute amount of time spent on the project by the student (in getting the data) and the supervisor (in providing help and in writing the paper). Or perhaps the supervisor should be satisfied with being corresponding author, regardless of time committed to the project.
• A sensible policy adopted by many supervisors is to give the student a fixed period of time (say 12 months) to write the first draft of the paper. If the student does not deliver, the supervisor may then write the paper and put her or his own name first.

The second issue raised in this letter is about the use of plurals. Our insistence of avoiding pronouns I, me and mine in all publications is very sound and logical. Even if it is a single author paper, surgery is a team game and we are virtually powerless without our unsung colleagues - residents, nurses, technicians etc. By using plurals we recognize their vital role in our success story. Where as in a multiple author paper, the author has no option but to call it ‘our work’ instead on ‘my paper’, even when he is writing the paper all by himself / herself, there were many hands helping him / her and it is our Journal policy to acknowledge the same.

• Insights blog

Defining authorship in your research paper

Co-authors, corresponding authors, and affiliations, why does authorship matter.

Authorship gives credit and implies accountability for published work, so there are academic, social and financial implications.

It is very important to make sure people who have contributed to a paper, are given credit as authors. And also that people who are recognized as authors, understand their responsibility and accountability for what is being published.

There are a couple of types of authorship to be aware of.

Co-author Any person who has made a significant contribution to a journal article. They also share responsibility and accountability for the results of the published research.

Corresponding author If more than one author writes an article, you’ll choose one person to be the corresponding author. This person will handle all correspondence about the article and sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors. They are responsible for ensuring that all the authors’ contact details are correct, and agree on the order that their names will appear in the article. The authors also will need to make sure that affiliations are correct, as explained in more detail below.

Open access publishing

There is increasing pressure on researchers to show the societal impact of their research.

Open access can help your work reach new readers, beyond those with easy access to a research library.

How common is co-authorship and what are the challenges collaborating authors face? Our white paper  Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A global view explores the experiences of 894 researchers from 62 countries.

If you are a named co-author, this means that you:

Made a significant contribution to the work reported. That could be in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.

Have drafted or written, substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.

Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.

Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.

Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article. Share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Every submission to our medical and health science journals should comply with the International Committee on Medical Journal Ethics’  definition of authorship .

Please include any other form of specific personal contribution in the acknowledgments section of your paper.

Affiliations: get it right

Your affiliation in the manuscript should be the institution where you conducted the research. You should also include details of any funding received from that institution.

If you have changed affiliation since completing the research, your new affiliation can be acknowledged in a note. We can’t normally make changes to affiliation after the journal accepts your article.

Changes to authorship

Authorship changes post-submission should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and any requests for authors to be removed or added must be in line with our authorship criteria.  

If you need to make an authorship change, you will need to contact the Journal Editorial Office or Editorial team in the first instance. You will be asked to complete our Authorship Change request form ; all authors (including those you are adding or removing) must sign this form. This will be reviewed by the Editor (and in some instances, the publisher). 

Please note any authorship change is at the Editor’s discretion; they have the right to refuse any authorship change they do not believe conforms with our authorship policies. 

Some T&F journals do not allow any authorship changes post-submission; where this is applicable, this will be clearly indicated on the journal homepage or on the ‘instructions for authors’ page. 

If the corresponding author changes before the article is published (for example, if a co-author becomes the corresponding author), you will need to write to the editor of the journal and the production editor. You will need to confirm to them that both authors have agreed the change.

Requested changes to the co-authors or corresponding authors following publication of the article may be considered, in line with the  authorship guidelines issued by COPE , the Committee on Publication Ethics. Please  see our corrections policy  for more details. Any requests for changes must be made by submitting the completed  Authorship Change Request form .

Authorship Change Request form

Important: agree on your corresponding author and the order of co-authors, and check all affiliations and contact details before submitting.

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies on Authorship

The following instructions (part of our  Editorial Policies ) apply to all Taylor & Francis Group journals.

Corresponding author

Co-authors must agree on who will take on the role of corresponding author. It is then the responsibility of the corresponding author to reach consensus with all co-authors regarding all aspects of the article, prior to submission. This includes the authorship list and order, and list of correct affiliations.

The corresponding author is also responsible for liaising with co-authors regarding any editorial queries. And, they act on behalf of all co-authors in any communication about the article throughout: submission, peer review, production, and after publication. The corresponding author signs the publishing agreement on behalf of all the listed authors.

AI-based tools and technologies for content generation

Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria.

All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions. Therefore, LLMs and other similar types of tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Where AI tools are used in content generation, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately in the authored work.

Changes in authorship

Any changes in authorship prior to or after publication must be agreed upon by all authors – including those authors being added or removed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to obtain confirmation from all co-authors and to provide a completed Authorship Change Request form to the editorial office.

If a change in authorship is necessary after publication, this will be amended via a post-publication notice. Any changes in authorship must comply with our criteria for authorship. And requests for significant changes to the authorship list, after the article has been accepted, may be rejected if clear reasons and evidence of author contributions cannot be provided.

Assistance from scientific, medical, technical writers or translators

Contributions made by professional scientific, medical or technical writers, translators or anyone who has assisted with the manuscript content, must be acknowledged. Their source of funding must also be declared.

They should be included in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section with an explanation of their role, or they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are advised to consult the  joint position statement  from American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP).

Assistance with experiments and data analysis

Any significant contribution to the research reported, should be appropriately credited according to our authorship criteria.

If any parts of the research were outsourced to professional laboratories or to data analysts, this should be clearly stated within the manuscript, alongside an explanation of their role. Or, they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Acknowledgments

Any individuals who have contributed to the article (for example, technical assistance, formatting-related writing assistance, translators, scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to developing the article), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be listed by name and affiliation in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section.

It is the responsibility of the authors to notify and obtain permission from those they wish to identify in this section. The process of obtaining permission should include sharing the article, so that those being identified can verify the context in which their contribution is being acknowledged.

Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. large language models) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.

Biographical note

Please supply a short biographical note for each author. This could be adapted from your departmental website or academic networking profile and should be relatively brief (e.g. no more than 200 words).Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Author name changes on published articles

There are many reasons why an author may change their name in the course of their career. And they may wish to update their published articles to reflect this change, without publicly announcing this through a correction notice. Taylor & Francis will update journal articles where an author makes a request for their own name change, full or partial, without the requirement for an accompanying correction notice. Any pronouns in accompanying author bios and declaration statements will also be updated as part of the name change, if required.

When an author requests a name change, Taylor & Francis will:

Change the metadata associated with the article on our Taylor & Francis Online platform.

Update the HTML and PDF version of the article.

Resupply the new metadata and article content to any abstracting and indexing services that have agreements with the journal. Note: such services may have their own bibliographic policies regarding author name changes. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis cannot be held responsible for controlling updates to articles on third party sites and services once an article has been disseminated.

If an author wishes for a correction notice to be published alongside their name change, Taylor & Francis will accommodate this on request. But, it is not required for an author name change to be made.

To request a name change, please contact your Journal’s Production Editor or contact us.

Taylor & Francis consider it a breach of publication ethics to request a name change for an individual without their explicit consent.

Additional resources

Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences  – our white paper based on a global survey of researchers’ experiences of collaboration.

Discussion Document: Authorship  – produced by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), this updated guide includes practical advice on addressing the most common ethical issues in this area

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies

Ethics for authors  – guidelines, support, and your checklist.

Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications: a bibliometric study for 27 scientific fields

• Published: 02 September 2020
• Volume 125 , pages 2773–2792, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• João M. Fernandes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1174-1966 1 &
• Paulo Cortez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7991-2090 2  

1418 Accesses

10 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Paper authorship and author placement have significant consequences for accountability and assignment of credit. Moreover, authors in different scientific fields tend to follow distinct approaches towards their ordering in scholarly publications. This manuscript presents a bibliometric study aiming to characterize the trends in the adoption of alphabetically ordered lists of authors in scholarly publications for 27 scientific fields. The study is supported by two different datasets (with 83 and 32 thousand papers that have two or more authors) and uses two indicators that measure the degree of order of the authors list of a set of articles. The main results show that three fields (Economics; Mathematics; and Business, Management and Accounting) have a strong alphabetic ordering usage, while other five scientific areas present some tendency to use lists of authors in alphabetic order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Overcoming alphabetical disadvantage: factors influencing the use of surname initial techniques and their impact on citation rates in the four major disciplines of social sciences

Alphabetized co-authorship in economics reconsidered

Does alphabetization significantly affect academic careers.

Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine , 55 (4), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.2310/6650.2007.06044 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Basili, V. R. (1992). Software modeling and measurement: The goal/question/metric paradigm . Tech. rep., University of Maryland.

Bornmann, L., & Osório, A. (2019). The value and credits of n-authors publications. J Informetrics , 13 (2), 540–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.001 .

Broad, W. J. (1981). The publishing game: Getting more for less. Science , 211 , 1137–1139. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7008199 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Estivill-Castro, V., & Wood, D. (1992). A survey of adaptive sorting algorithms. ACM Computing Surveys , 24 (4), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/146370.146381 .

Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of scimago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal , 22 (8), 2623–2628.

Fernandes, J. M. (2014). Authorship trends in software engineering. Scientometrics , 101 (1), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1331-6 .

Fernandes, J. M., & Monteiro, M. P. (2017). Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics , 110 (2), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2214-9 .

Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics , 4 (4), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.010 .

Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B., Schubert, A., & Thijs, B. (2006). Proceedings literature as additional data source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics , 68 (3), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0124-y .

Grant, I. (1989). Multiple authorship. BMJ: British Medical Journal , 298 (6670), 386.

Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature , 450 (7173), 1165–1165.

Hagen, N. T. (2014). Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias. Journal of Informetrics , 8 (2), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.01.003 .

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics , 107 (2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x .

Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A., & Chicken, E. (2013). Nonparametric statistical methods . New York: Wiley.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Hu, X. (2009). Loads of special authorship functions: Linear growth in the percentage of “equal first authors” and corresponding authors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 60 (11), 2378–2381. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21164 .

Lisée, C., Larivière, V., & Archambault, É. (2008). Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 59 (11), 1776–1784. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20888 .

Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D. V., & Ariely, D. (2009). The researcher as a consumer of scientific publications: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits? Marketing Science , 28 (3), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0406 .

Malički, M., Jerončić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2012). Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 12 , 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-189 .

Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE , 6 (9), e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477 .

Onwude, J. L., Staines, A., & Lilford, R. J. (1993). Multiple author trend worst in medicine. British Medical Journal , 306 (6888), 1345. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.306.6888 .

Peffers, K., & Hui, W. (2003). Collaboration and author order: Changing patterns in is research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 11 (1), 10. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01110 .

Peidu, C. (2019). Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance? Scientometrics , 121 (3), 1527–1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03254-1 .

Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics , 60 (3), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034384.35498.7d .

Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances , 3 (11), e1700404. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700404 .

Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology , 295 (3), C567–C575. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008 .

Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, H. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics , 60 (2), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027792.09362.3f .

Vardi, M. Y. (2009). Conferences versus journals in computing research. Communications of the ACM , 52 (5), 5. https://doi.org/10.1145/1506409.1506410 .

Vavryčuk, V. (2018). Fair ranking of researchers and research teams. PLoS ONE , 13 (4), e0195509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195509 .

Vrettas, G., & Sanderson, M. (2015). Conferences vs. journals in computer science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 66 (12), 2674–2684. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23349 .

Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics , 6 (4), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008 .

Weber, M. (2018). The effects of listing authors in alphabetical order: A review of the empirical evidence. Research Evaluation , 27 (3), 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy008 .

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science , 316 (5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia within the R&D Units Project Scope: UIDB/00319/2020. We would like to thank Rui Mendes (from U. Minho) for the initial version of the Python program that was used to automatically calculate the various metrics for our datasets. We also acknowledge Jorge Sousa Pinto and José Nuno Oliveira (from U. Minho) for discussions on how to measure the order degree of a list. We thank the anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments that helped improving the contents of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ALGORITMI Center, Department of Informatics, University of Minho, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal

João M. Fernandes

ALGORITMI Centre, Department of Information Systems, University of Minho, 4804-533, Guimarães, Portugal

Paulo Cortez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J. M. Fernandes performed the conceptualization, methodology, software, investigation, resources, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. P. Cortez contributed with methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing, and visualization.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to João M. Fernandes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fernandes, J.M., Cortez, P. Alphabetic order of authors in scholarly publications: a bibliometric study for 27 scientific fields. Scientometrics 125 , 2773–2792 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03686-0

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2020

Published : 02 September 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03686-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometrics
• Scientific authorship
• Authors order
• Scholarly publication
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The meaning of author order in medical research

Affiliation.

• 1 University of Toronto Radiology Residency Training Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
• PMID: 17651671
• DOI: 10.2310/6650.2007.06044

Background: Manuscript authorship and author placement have important implications for accountability and allocation of credit. The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between an author's place in the author list and the type of contribution reported by that author. This pattern was then used to develop a method by which author responsibility and accountability can be clarified.

Methods: The published contributions of each author of original research articles with a minimum of four authors published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, and the Canadian Medical Association Journal in a 3-year period after author contribution forms were required were coded into 1 of eleven contribution categories. The contributions were grouped according to first, second, middle, and last author and compared by position.

Results: For most categories of contribution, the levels of participation were highest for first authors, followed by last and then second authors. Middle authors had lower levels particularly in conception, drafts of the manuscript, supervision, and being a guarantor.

Conclusions: Current patterns of author order and contribution suggest a consistent theme. Based on the results, a proposal is put forth by which author accountability is clarified. In this proposal, authors are classified as either "primary," "contributing," or "senior or supervisory," each with specified contributions. More than one author may be classified into each author category.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. Bates T, Anić A, Marusić M, Marusić A. Bates T, et al. JAMA. 2004 Jul 7;292(1):86-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.1.86. JAMA. 2004. PMID: 15238595
• Changing author counts in five major general medicine journals: effect of author contribution forms. Baerlocher MO, Gautam T, Newton M, Tomlinson G. Baerlocher MO, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):875-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.010. Epub 2009 May 26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009. PMID: 19473810
• Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology. Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Corona-Villalobos CP, Mensa M, Eng J, Lewin JS, Kamel IR. Bonekamp S, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jun;198(6):1247-55. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.8253. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012. PMID: 22623536
• Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Smith E, Williams-Jones B. Smith E, et al. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012 Jun;18(2):199-212. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5. Epub 2011 Feb 11. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012. PMID: 21312000 Review.
• 'Author Contribution Details' and not 'Authorship Sequence' as a merit to determine credit: A need to relook at the current Indian practice. Das N, Das S. Das N, et al. Natl Med J India. 2020 Jan-Feb;33(1):24-30. doi: 10.4103/0970-258X.308238. Natl Med J India. 2020. PMID: 33565483 Review.
• Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers. Peng X, Hu D, Guo Y, Jiang H, Wu X, Hu Q. Peng X, et al. PLoS One. 2024 Aug 5;19(8):e0308377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308377. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39102401 Free PMC article.
• Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Eldridge L, Garton EM, Duncan K, Gopal S. Eldridge L, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Mar 4;7(3):e243215. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3215. JAMA Netw Open. 2024. PMID: 38551565 Free PMC article.
• Publish or Perish: Selective Attrition as a Unifying Explanation for Patterns in Innovation over the Career. Yu H, Marschke G, Ross MB, Staudt J, Weinberg B. Yu H, et al. J Hum Resour. 2023 Jul;58(4):1307-1346. doi: 10.3368/jhr.59.2.1219-10630r1. J Hum Resour. 2023. PMID: 37850081 Free PMC article.
• Does writing style affect gender differences in the research performance of articles?: An empirical study of BERT-based textual sentiment analysis. Ma Y, Teng Y, Deng Z, Liu L, Zhang Y. Ma Y, et al. Scientometrics. 2023;128(4):2105-2143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-023-04666-w. Epub 2023 Mar 8. Scientometrics. 2023. PMID: 37095862 Free PMC article.
• The editorial process in medical journals: reconciling different perspectives. Gaitán-Duarte H. Gaitán-Duarte H. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2023 Mar 30;74(1):7-14. doi: 10.18597/rcog.4033. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2023. PMID: 37093933 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.