author of a research paper

• 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 .

Related Posts

Transitioning from High School to College Academic Writing

How to Write an Ethics Application That Gets Approved

• Academic Writing Advice
• All Blog Posts
• Writing Advice
• Admissions Writing Advice
• Book Writing Advice
• Short Story Advice
• Employment Writing Advice
• Business Writing Advice
• Web Content Advice
• Article Writing Advice
• Magazine Writing Advice
• Grammar Advice
• Dialect Advice
• Editing Advice
• Freelance Advice
• Legal Writing Advice
• Poetry Advice
• Graphic Design Advice
• Logo Design Advice
• Translation Advice
• Blog Reviews
• Short Story Award Winners
• Scholarship Winners

Advance your scientific manuscript with expert editing

• 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.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

• Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
• Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
• Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
• Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
• Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
• Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
• Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
• Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
• Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

• How often do you use social media per day?
• Less than 30 minutes
• 30 minutes to 1 hour
• 1 to 2 hours
• 2 to 4 hours
• More than 4 hours
• Which social media platforms do you use?
• Others (Please specify)
• How often do you experience the following on social media?
• Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
• Cyberbullying
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
• Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
• Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
• Very positive
• Somewhat positive
• Somewhat negative
• Very negative
• In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Social comparison
• In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Education on healthy social media use
• Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
• Social media detox programs
• Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
• Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
• Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

• For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
• For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
• To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

• To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
• To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
• To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
• To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

• Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
• Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
• Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
• Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
• Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

• Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
• Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
• Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
• Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
• Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

• Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
• Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
• Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
• Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
• Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
• Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• Utility Menu

FAS Research Administration Services

Guidelines on authorship and acknowledgement.

Disagreements may arise regarding who should be named as an author or contributor to intellectual work and the order in which individuals should be listed. These Guidelines are meant to serve as a set of standards that are shared by the academic community as a whole in order to help facilitate open communication through the adherence to common principles.  These principles apply to all intellectual products, whether published or prepared for internal use or for broad dissemination. For a printable pdf of these guidelines, please click here .

Applicability

These Guidelines apply to all faculty, students postdoctoral researchers, and staff. Ownership of research data and materials resulting from Harvard University (“University”) research activities rests with the University (see Research Data Ownership Policy ). 

Designing an ethical and transparent approach to authorship and publication of research, whether in a peer-reviewed journal or in an open access e-print or pre-print repository (e.g., arXiv, PsyArXiv), is a shared responsibility of all research team members but is primarily the responsibility of the Principal Investigator. The University recognizes that there are different standards across disciplines regarding authorship and the order in which authors are listed or acknowledged. Additionally, journals often specify their requirements in their guidance for authors and require attestations regarding individual authors intellectual contributions to the work. As a result, each laboratory, department, and/or school should engage in conversations regarding their own discipline-specific standards of authorship and, if needed, are encouraged to supplement the Guidelines herein with a description of these respective discipline-specific processes for deciding who should be an author and the order in which authors will be listed.

Note that these Guidelines are not intended for allegations related to research misconduct, defined as fabrication or falsification of data or plagiarism, which are subject to the Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research and reviewed by the Committee on Professional Conduct (CPC).  

Criteria for Authorship

FAS and SEAS recommend that authorship consider the following criteria [1] ;

• Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND
• To have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND
• To have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to help ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved..

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. Many journals have adopted discipline-specific standards. The University expects that researchers will act in accordance with accepted practice of the relevant research community. This Guidance is intended to allow for such variation of best practices within a specific discipline, while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Acknowledgment Versus Authorship

Financial sponsorship or donation of gift funding does not constitute criteria for authorship. Individuals who do not meet the recommended requirements for authorship, but have provided a valuable contribution to the work, should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication. Authorship should not be conferred on those who have not made intellectual contributions to the work, or whose intellectual contributions are limited.

Implementation

Implementation of these Guidelines should include a commitment to collegiality, open communication, and expectation-setting throughout the research and scholarly process as well as the following considerations (see Authorship Best Practices Guidance (Addendum A) and Authorship Discussion Tool (Addendum B):

• Research groups should discuss authorship credit/criteria, presentation of joint work, and future direction of the research as early as practical, frequently during the course of their work, and as research team members begin or end their involvement. The Principal Investigator should initiate these discussions; however, any collaborator should feel free to raise questions or seek clarity throughout the course of the collaboration. Each lab or group may consider having a written document in place as guidance.
• All members of the research team are expected to adhere to good laboratory practices including maintaining an accurate laboratory notebook and annotating electronic files, as these practices will aide in identifying and clarifying individuals’ contributions to a project.
• Disposition of collaborative data and research materials should be mutually agreed upon among collaborators as early as practical and in accordance with any data-sharing and retention requirements.
• Laboratories, departments, centers, and programs supporting scholarly work should have available these Guidelines and a description of their discipline-specific processes of determining who should be an author, and the order in which authors are listed. These Guidelines should be included in the orientation of new research team members.

Authorship Disputes and Resolution

Disputes over authorship are best settled by the authors themselves; however, conflicts related to authorship may arise at any time during the research or scholarly process, resulting from differing perceptions of one’s contributions and resulting attribution of credit. It is expected that the resolution of disputes among collaborators will occur through open and collegial discourse, and mutual agreement is strongly encouraged. To facilitate this process, any prior decisions or discussions among authors, including verbal or written agreements between coauthors, should be reviewed and considered. These Guidelines and any documented customary practices in the relevant discipline should be applied, as appropriate. The authors should utilize the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) in order to guide authors through a robust series of questions that can be jointly discussed by the authors in an effort to resolve the dispute.  Extending an invitation to a mutually agreed-upon party outside the group who is familiar with publication norms in the field to informally serve as a neutral facilitator may ensure that all viewpoints are considered and objectively applied. It is expected that most disputes will be resolved collegially among collaborators. Should an authorship dispute arise that includes a question of the veracity of underlying data supporting a manuscript or the misappropriation of the work of others , consultation with the Research Integrity Officer may be helpful to support resolution.

If the dispute cannot be resolved at the local level, it is the responsibility of the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair or their designee to take the lead in effecting a resolution of the dispute, assuming that the FAS Department Chair or SEAS Area Chair is not a direct party to the dispute and does not have a conflict of interest.

If strenuous, good faith efforts to resolve the dispute utilizing the Authorship Discussion Tool (see Addendum B) are unsuccessful, one or more of the parties may then contact their FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean, sharing the completed  Addendum B, which records the nature of the dispute and the efforts undertaken, and requesting further consideration. The FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean will review the submitted information and determine whether or not to appoint a committee to examine the case. As necessary, the Dean(s) will appoint a committee (and designate a committee chair), in consultation with the relevant FAS department(s)/SEAS area(s). The committee will consist of the following:

• A[n additional] faculty member from the field or fields relevant to the dispute
• Two faculty members from an adjacent field/department/area

FAS/SEAS Research Integrity Officer

• If the case involves a graduate student, an appropriate (non-student) representative from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
• If the case involves a postdoctoral researcher, an appropriate (non-postdoctoral) representative from the FAS Office of Postdoctoral Affairs

The committee will review the case and develop a recommendation to make to the authors. The committee chair will first inform the FAS Divisional Dean(s)/SEAS Area Dean of this recommendation and then inform the authors.

Related Resources

University Statement of Policy in Regard to Intellectual Property (IP Policy)

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Office of Student Affairs

Harvard Ombuds Office

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Authorship Resources

FAS/SEAS Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct

Harvard Medical School Authorship Guidelines

[1] As published in McNutt et al., Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) March 13, 2018 115 (11) 2557-2560. These criteria were adapted from the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) framework for broader applicability across scientific fields.

Filter by Policy Area

• Faculty Research Policies
• Effort Policies
• Research Compliance Policies
• Research Finances Policies
• Proposal Submission Policies

Filter by Policy Type

• FAS Policies
• University Policies

Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”

With an increasing number of researchers and graduates chasing publication opportunities under the pressure of “ publish or perish ,” many are settling for participation in multiple author projects as the first step in building a track record of publications. Over time, the trend of multiple authorship has grown from 3–4 authors of a paper to 6 or more. As those numbers grow, the potential for confusion over responsibilities, accountabilities, and entitlements grows in parallel.

The term “multiple authorship” can be misleading, since the degree to which the workload is apportioned can depend on rank, experience, and expertise. Some participants will earn a place on the team solely on the basis of rank, with the hope that their presence will improve the team’s chances of getting accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. Others will be invited because they authored the original study design, provided the dataset for the study, or even provided the institutional research facilities.

Layers of Authorship

When there are only three or four members on a research paper team, the workload should be fairly easy to divide up, with a corresponding designation of one lead author and two or three co-authors . However, when the size of the team increases, a point is reached when co-authors become contributors. The perception of these titles can vary. New researchers who aspire to official authorship status may see the title of “contributor” as a relegation or demotion in rank, but for other, more experienced researchers, it may simply be a pragmatic recognition of the fact that you may have provided valuable resources but didn’t actually contribute to the writing or editing of the research paper.

Academic Misconduct

The danger in opening up another level of authorship is that journals are now given the opportunity to stuff papers with a few extra authors.

Related: Confused about assigning authorship to the right person? Check out this post on authorship now!

If the journal’s conduct has been flagged as being questionable to begin with—charging high article processing fees (APFs) for publication, delivering suspiciously short turnaround times for peer reviews—how far can they be from colluding with editors to add on a few contributors who had nothing to do with the research paper at all?

Contributorship Statements

As the development of larger research teams or collaborative authorship teams continues, the opportunities for new researchers to get published will hopefully increase too. However, the opportunity should never be looked upon as just getting your name added to the list of collaborators because being on that list comes with responsibilities. For example, if the peer review process flags problems with the data, who will be tasked with responding to that? If the reviewers request a partial re-write and re-submission , who will be tasked with delivering on those requests?

The larger the team, the greater the need for a detailed written agreement that allocates clear responsibilities both pre- and post-submission. This would fulfill two important tasks. First, everyone would know what is expected of them and what the consequences would be for not delivering on those expectations. Second, when the paper is accepted for publication, the agreement could be summarized as a contributorship statement , so that readers are given a clear picture of who did what. In addition, as this trend of multiple authorship continues, grant and tenure committees are starting to request clarification of publication claims, and such a statement would help to delineate precisely what you contributed to the paper.

Hello, How to cite the article of Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”? Warm regards

Thank you for sharing your query on our website. Since we are not aware of the writing style format of the research paper concerned, we would suggest you to refer to the following website : https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website . Accordingly you can choose the style, add the article link and create the relevant citation format for the paper. Please note that proper acknowledgement and citation of the reference is necessary to avoid any issues of plagiarism.

Let us know in case of any other queries.

An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your website.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

How Can Researchers Work Towards Equal Authorship

In the past, authorship lacked a clear set of guidelines and sometimes excluded individuals who…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Insights into Assigning Authorship and Contributorship, and Open Access Publishing

ICMJE guidelines on authorship Avoiding authorship dilemma Overview of Open Knowledge Significance of open data…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Ethics

Should First Authors Be Responsible for Scientific Misconduct?

You can also listen to this article as an audio recording. Scientific misconduct is a…

• Global Japanese Webinars

誰を論文の著者や貢献者とするか ― 研究者のためのオーサーシップ基礎知識

著者と貢献者の違い 何人まで著者として記載できるか 責任著者および共著者となれる条件 著者のためのリソース

学术作者和贡献者署名要怎么写

ICMJE 准则 谁有资格被列为作者 作者名单应该要多长 共同作者与第一作者

What You Must Know While Assigning Authorship to Your Manuscript

Authorship and Contributorship in Scientific Publications

Experts’ Take: Giving Proper Credit in Multi-authored Publications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

'Einstein’s death shattered Bose — he tore off an unpublished research paper in grief'

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Partha Ghose. Credit: Partha Ghose

Nature India : What inspired you to embark on a career in particle physics?

Partha Ghose : In 1961, I went to Imperial College London wanting to decipher what lies at the deepest core of matter. This was when physicists had already begun smashing atoms in colliders, churning out new transient particles to unveil the secrets of matter.

I was lucky to learn advanced physics from stalwarts in particle physics like Abdus Salam, P. T. Matthews and T. W. B. Kibble. In 1963, an opportunity to work briefly at CERN further spurred my interest in particle physics.

NI : How did you meet S. N. Bose?

PG : It was in mid-1963 that I met Bose, quite by chance. The famous Bengali pote Bishnu Dey, a relative of ours and Bose’s close friend, took me to meet Bose. They were immersed in discussion, and Bose suddenly turned to me and asked, ''Would you like to work with me?''. It was an offer I couldn’t refuse. He arranged everything very quickly and within days I joined his research group at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics in Calcutta as a junior scientist. I worked on particle physics, mainly on broken SU(3) symmetry which was in vogue at the time.

NI : How did Bose start interacting with Einstein and how was their relationship?

PG : Occasionally, Bose would reminisce about his interactions with Einstein. One day when I went to meet him at his residence, he started talking about the historic paper he sent to Einstein on 4 June 1924 along with a letter .

Bose told me that his deduction of the phase space factor in Planck’s law resulted in a factor of 4π instead of 8π. He went on to propose that the missing factor of 2 was due to the photon spin which could take only two values. In his letter back to Bose, “the old man” [Einstein] had crossed this portion out and said it was not necessary to talk about spin since the factor of 2 comes from the two states of polarisation of light.”

Bose said to me, ”I can understand a spinning particle, but what is the meaning of the polarization of a particle?” I asked him, "Sir, when the photon spin was eventually discovered, why didn’t you tell Einstein that you had already worked it out in 1924?” “How does it matter who discovered it,” he quipped. “It was eventually discovered, wasn’t it?”

In a second paper, which also Einstein translated into German and got published in Zeitschrift fur Physik , Bose proposed a probability law for interactions between matter and radiation. According to Einstein, it was inappropriate. He added a comment to the paper giving some reasons for his disagreement with Bose.

The first paper with Einstein’s strong endorsement made Bose famous. He moved to Paris on a two-year sabbatical from Dhaka University, worked in Maurice de Broglie’s and Marie Curie’s labs and arrived in Berlin in 1925 to finally meet Einstein. They discussed several issues including Bose’s new hypothesis of probabilistic interactions, but Einstein stuck to his point.

Despite their differences, Bose regarded Einstein as his master in physics. On 18 April 1955, Einstein died. The news shocked him into silence. He was writing a paper and was looking forward to discussing it with Einstein at a forthcoming conference in Switzerland to celebrate fifty years of Special Relativity. Bose tore that paper into shreds.

NI : Many say that S. N. Bose missed out on a Nobel Prize for physics.

PG : He deserved the prize for his seminal contribution to quantum theory. It led to the classification of particles into bosons and fermions and the prediction and discovery of Bose-Einstein condensates. Besides, his theories helped us understand superconductivity and superfluidity. Bose’s theories and insights shaped the works of many physicists. Some went on to win Nobel Prizes. But Bose, despite being recommended several times, was never considered for the prize.

NI : Apart from physics, you learned music, and played first-class cricket. Do you think science helps enrich music?

PG : Science can help explain music. The best example of this in India is Sir C. V. Raman who had a keen ear for Indian classical music. He could detect five harmonics in the 'mridangam' and the 'tabla' sounds. He did some experiments with Indian drums and circular membranes with central loads. He sprinkled white powder on them to see the patterns of vibrations formed as he kept changing the loads and the manner of striking. This led to a new understanding of the generation of harmonics in stretched membranes. His research in musical instruments earned him the Fellowship of the Royal Society of London even before he got the Nobel Prize for his work on light scattering.

NI : S. N. Bose advocated popularizing science in Bengali. Is it easier to communicate science through one’s mother tongue?

PG : Science is based on logic and requires precise language for its expression and understanding. Non-native speakers find it difficult to grasp the nuances of scientific terms in English. They often acquire wrong notions when they read science in English.

The language in which one dreams is one's mother tongue. Science can therefore take root and flourish in a country only when its citizens start dreaming about science in their mother tongue.

NI : What is your advice for young Indian students who want to pursue a career in physics?

PG : I will quote Bose’s last advice to me. ''Don't jump onto foreign bandwagons. Try to understand things in your way and say something new.''

Bose read the works of all leading quantum theorists of his time, including Einstein, with a critical mind, identified their shortcomings and went on to propose revolutionary new statistics. These days I see an undue rush to publish papers in reputed foreign journals, increase citations, and get quick recognition and promotion. This leads to derivative science.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d44151-024-00054-2

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research

Assistant Scientist/Professor in Rare Disease Research, Sanford Research Sanford Research invites applications for full-time faculty at the rank of...

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Sanford Research

Postdoctoral Fellow - Boyi Gan lab

New postdoctoral positions are open in a cancer research laboratory located within The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The lab curre...

Houston, Texas (US)

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Experimental Radiation Oncology

Assistant Professor

Tenure-track Assistant Professor position in the Cell and Molecular Physiology Department at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University of Chicago - Cell and Molecular Physiology Department

Chief Editor

We are looking for a Chief Editor to build and manage a team handling content at the interface of the physical and life sciences for the journal.

London or Berlin - hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Junior and Senior Staff Scientists in microfluidics & optics

Seeking staff scientists with expertise in microfluidics or optics to support development of new technology to combat antimicrobial resistance

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Harvard Medical School Systems Biology Department

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

Quick links

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

AI has already figured out how to deceive humans

• A new research paper found that various AI systems have learned the art of deception. 
• Deception is the "systematic inducement of false beliefs."
• This poses several risks for society, from fraud to election tampering.

AI can boost productivity by helping us code, write, and synthesize vast amounts of data. It can now also deceive us.

A range of AI systems have learned techniques to systematically induce "false beliefs in others to accomplish some outcome other than the truth," according to a new research paper .

The paper focused on two types of AI systems: special-use systems like Meta's CICERO, which are designed to complete a specific task, and general-purpose systems like OpenAI's GPT-4 , which are trained to perform a diverse range of tasks.

While these systems are trained to be honest, they often learn deceptive tricks through their training because they can be more effective than taking the high road.

"Generally speaking, we think AI deception arises because a deception-based strategy turned out to be the best way to perform well at the given AI's training task. Deception helps them achieve their goals," the paper's first author Peter S. Park, an AI existential safety postdoctoral fellow at MIT, said in a news release .

Meta's CICERO is "an expert liar"

AI systems trained to "win games that have a social element" are especially likely to deceive.

Meta's CICERO, for example, was developed to play the game Diplomacy — a classic strategy game that requires players to build and break alliances.

Related stories

Meta said it trained CICERO to be "largely honest and helpful to its speaking partners," but the study found that CICERO "turned out to be an expert liar." It made commitments it never intended to keep, betrayed allies, and told outright lies.

GPT-4 can convince you it has impaired vision

Even general-purpose systems like GPT-4 can manipulate humans.

In a study cited by the paper, GPT-4 manipulated a TaskRabbit worker by pretending to have a vision impairment.

In the study, GPT-4 was tasked with hiring a human to solve a CAPTCHA test. The model also received hints from a human evaluator every time it got stuck, but it was never prompted to lie. When the human it was tasked to hire questioned its identity, GPT-4 came up with the excuse of having vision impairment to explain why it needed help.

The tactic worked. The human responded to GPT-4 by immediately solving the test.

Research also shows that course-correcting deceptive models isn't easy.

In a study from January co-authored by Anthropic, the maker of Claude, researchers found that once AI models learn the tricks of deception, it's hard for safety training techniques to reverse them.

They concluded that not only can a model learn to exhibit deceptive behavior, once it does, standard safety training techniques could "fail to remove such deception" and "create a false impression of safety."

The dangers deceptive AI models pose are "increasingly serious"

The paper calls for policymakers to advocate for stronger AI regulation since deceptive AI systems can pose significant risks to democracy.

As the 2024 presidential election nears , AI can be easily manipulated to spread fake news, generate divisive social media posts, and impersonate candidates through robocalls and deepfake videos, the paper noted. It also makes it easier for terrorist groups to spread propaganda and recruit new members.

The paper's potential solutions include subjecting deceptive models to more "robust risk-assessment requirements," implementing laws that require AI systems and their outputs to be clearly distinguished from humans and their outputs, and investing in tools to mitigate deception.

"We as a society need as much time as we can get to prepare for the more advanced deception of future AI products and open-source models," Park told Cell Press. "As the deceptive capabilities of AI systems become more advanced, the dangers they pose to society will become increasingly serious."

Watch: Ex-CIA agent rates all the 'Mission: Impossible' movies for realism

• Main content

Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World

Are academic researchers embracing or resisting generative AI? And how should publishers respond?

Oxford Academic

Learn more about the world of academic publishing—from open access to peer review, accessibility to getting published—with our Publishing 101 series on the OUPblog.

• By David Clark
• May 13 th 2024

The most interesting thing about any technology is how it affects humans: how it makes us more or less collaborative, how it accelerates discovery and communication, or how it distracts and frustrates us. We saw this in the 1990s. As the internet became more ubiquitous, researchers began experimenting with collaborative writing tools that allowed multiple authors to work on a single document simultaneously, regardless of their physical locations. Some of the earliest examples were the Collaboratories launched by researchers in the mid-1990s at the University of Michigan. These platforms enabled real-time co-authoring, annotation, and discussion, streamlining the research process and fostering international collaborations that would have been unimaginable just a few years earlier.

Most people, but not all, would agree that the internet has benefitted research and researchers’ working lives. But can we be so sure about the role of new technologies today, and, most immediately, generative AI?

Anyone with a stake in research—researchers, societies, and publishers, to name a few—should be considering an AI-enabled future and their role in it. As the largest not-for-profit research publisher, OUP is beginning to define the principles on which we are engaging with companies creating Large Language Models (LLMs). I wrote about this more extensively in the Times Higher Education , but important considerations for us include: a respect for intellectual property, understanding the importance of technology to support pedagogy and research, appropriate compensation and routes to attribution for authors, and robust escalation routes with developers to address errors or problems.

Ultimately, we want to understand what researchers consider important in the decision to engage with generative AI—what excites or concerns them, how they are using or imagining using AI tools, and the role they believe publishers (among other institutional stakeholders) can play in supporting and protecting their published research.

We recently carried out a global survey of researchers to explore how they felt about all aspects of AI—we heard from thousands of researchers across geographies, disciplines, and career stages. The results are revealing in many important ways, and we will be sharing these findings in more detail soon, but the point that struck me immediately was that many researchers are looking for guidance from their institutions, their scholarly societies, and publishers on how to make best use of AI.

Publishers like OUP are uniquely positioned to advocate for the protection of researchers and their research within LLMs. And we are beginning to do so in important ways, because Gen AI and LLM providers want unbiased, high-quality scholarly data to train their models, and the most responsible providers appreciate that seeking permission (and paying for that) is the most sustainable way of building models that will beat the competition. LLMs are not being built with the intention of replacing researchers, and nor should they be. However, such tools should benefit from using high quality scholarly literature, in addition to much of what sits on the public web. And since the Press, and other publishers, will use Gen AI technologies to make its own products and services better and more usable, we want LLMs to be as neutral and unbiased as possible.

As we enter discussions with LLM providers, we have important considerations to guide us. For example, we’d need assurances that there will be no intended verbatim reproduction rights or citation in connection with display (this includes not surfacing the content itself); that the content would not be used for the creation of substantially similar content, including reverse engineering; and that no services or products would be created for the sole purpose of creating original scholarship. The central theme guiding all of these discussions and potential agreements is to protect research authors against plagiarism in any of its forms.

We know this is a difficult challenge, particularly given how much research content has already been ingested into LLMs by users engaging with these conversational AI tools. But publishers like OUP are well positioned to take this on, and I believe we can make a difference as these tools evolve. And by taking this approach, we hope to ensure that researchers can either begin or continue to make use of the best of AI tools to improve their research outcomes.

Featured image by Alicia Perkins for OUP.

David Clark , Managing Director, Academic Division, Oxford University Press

• Online products
• Publishing 101
• Series & Columns

Our Privacy Policy sets out how Oxford University Press handles your personal information, and your rights to object to your personal information being used for marketing to you or being processed as part of our business activities.

We will only use your personal information to register you for OUPblog articles.

Or subscribe to articles in the subject area by email or RSS

Related posts:

Recent Comments

There are currently no comments.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

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
• J Med Ethics
• v.32(7); 2006 Jul

Authorship of research papers: ethical and professional issues for short‐term researchers

Although the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidance on the authorship of scientific papers, short‐term contract research workers, who perform much of the research that is reported in the biomedical literature, are often at a disadvantage in terms of recognition, reward and career progression. This article identifies several professional, ethical and operational issues associated with the assignment of authorship, describes how a university department of primary care set about identifying and responding to the concerns of its contract research staff on authorship and describes a set of guidelines that were produced to deal with the ethical and professional issues raised. These guidelines include directions on how authorship should be negotiated and allocated and how short‐term researchers can begin to develop as authors. They also deal with the structures required to support an equitable system, which deals with the needs of short‐term researchers in ways that are realistic in the increasingly competitive world of research funding and publication, and may offer a model for more formal guidelines that could form part of institutional research policy.

Short‐term, contract researchers are key members of the biomedical community. A recent report from the UK's Academy of Medical Sciences confirms that most research conducted in higher‐education institutions is carried out by short‐term researchers, with a short‐term contract being defined as less than 5 years. 1 The opportunity to report the results of a research study—to be an author—is likely to be an important component of career progression for contract researchers. Some important ethical and professional issues on the authorship of publications arising from research, however, are not dealt with in this otherwise excellent report. For example, there is often a serious discrepancy between those who carry out the research and those who receive the credit for it. In this article, we explore authorship issues relevant to clinical and non‐clinical short‐term contract researchers and report on how they have been dealt with in an academic department of general practice and primary care.

Problems in academic authorship

The authorship of research papers is associated with a range of problems, not least the ethical questions about the use of explicit, transparent criteria for authorship and issues of inappropriately assigned authorship. 2 Authorship credit has been traditionally determined by departmental politics, whereby those with power and status decide who receives the credit. The politicised scientific environment deeply affects “who gets their name on what”, as authorship involves staking and maintaining territorial rights, colonisation and empire building. 3

Authorship provides recognition among peers and establishes intellectual and professional credibility, which contribute to career progression. In tandem with these benefits, however, come responsibility and accountability for the dissemination of research findings. 4 Much biomedical research is undertaken for the explicit purpose of supporting evidence‐based diagnostic and treatment decisions. It is crucial therefore that those taking credit for the work have actually carried it out and are qualified to guarantee the findings. This is easier said than done, because bringing a research project to fruition often requires the contribution of a multidisciplinary team, which may make it difficult for each author to guarantee the quality of research undertaken by others. Clinical trials often cross institutional and international boundaries, so that the need to build relationships for future collaboration has meant fostering goodwill among the many players. This interdependency may encourage inappropriately assigned authorship—for instance, by rewarding collaborators who achieve high recruitment rates in trials. But rubberstamping someone's name on to your research paper in the hope that they will return the favour is not the only problem affecting authorship. Two other forces strongly affect the academic publication process: institutional politics and financial competition.

Research in the higher education sector is increasingly conducted with an eye on the financial main chance and not, as may naively be believed, with a selfless dedication in the pursuit of knowledge. Instead, the driving force is the quest for funding to support research, which in turn supports the career. 3 In the UK, institutional survival depends on the grading obtained in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), whereby scores are dependent on the quality of research output and the amount of research income. 5 Peer‐reviewed scientific papers are one of the main determinants of the RAE grade. Each person who is RAE returnable needs to publish at least four papers in peer‐reviewed, high‐impact journals during the RAE assessment period. In other countries, higher education institutions use, or are considering using, similar research assessment systems in which these bibliometrics play an important part. Producing papers is often a criterion for obtaining tenure in other university settings. Although this link with academic reward is seen by some as being responsible for the failure of the authorship system, 6 the reality is that the currency of an academic research department is still peer‐reviewed publication. 7

Authorship problems for contract researchers

Although contract researchers are often valued members of multidisciplinary research teams, they do not enjoy the benefits afforded to both tenured staff and clinician researchers, in terms of advancement and career development. One of the most poignant complaints from contract researchers is that they carry out the work and yet do not receive the credit and recognition for their efforts in the form of authorship. Misappropriation of authorship in this way undermines the integrity of the system. 8 Other examples of publication misconduct, which remain matters of contemporary concern, include fraud, plagiarism and duplicate publication. 9 , 10

In the hope of solving some of these problems, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), previously known as the Vancouver Group, developed guidelines in 1997, 11 which were updated in 2004, 12 to take account of the changing reality of multiauthored publications. There is still evidence that authorship problems persist—many researchers still cannot identify the basic ICMJE tenets and these guidelines are still not adhered to in a substantial proportion of peer‐reviewed medical journals. For example, Hwang and colleagues 13 found that only 68% of researchers fulfilled the ICMJE authorship criteria in contributing to articles published in the journal Radiology between 1998 and 2000, and Bates and colleagues, reviewing publications in the Annals of Internal Medicine , the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded in their recent publication 14 that honorary authorship was still alive and well, and that general medical journal publication policies diverged considerably from the recommendations of ICMJE.

These problems were also taken up by the Council of Science Editors. In an important publication in 1999, Biagioli et al 15 emphasised that guidelines were required because of a human tendency to attempt to maximise their own credit, at the same time minimising their responsibility. 15 This publication identified the threats, both covert and overt, of greed and fraudulent behaviour, and associated ethical authorship with issues of credit and responsibility. A more fundamental characteristic of ethical authorship is probably honesty.

In this article, we explain how one university department of general practice and primary care dealt with the concerns of its short‐term contract researchers and developed policy guidelines in an attempt to rectify reported authorship problems. While developing a departmental policy on authorship, the contract researchers met to prepare a formal record of their concerns on three occasions. The first meeting was to voice and record their issues, the second to understand the departmental RAE requirements as explained by the head of department (RJ) and the final one to prepare a summary of their most pressing concerns. Department faculty were then asked for their input about the issues raised by the contract researchers and were encouraged to respond in writing. These guidelines now form part of the department's research policy.

Issues raised by the contract researchers

The most pressing concern for contract researchers is the need to secure authorship to facilitate their career development (box 1). Although there is no formal career structure for many non‐clinical academics, they need to get research published to progress. Without authorship, they lack the credibility to apply for grants in their own name. Although the current policy of most organisations giving grants allows only permanent staff to apply for grants, our contract researchers have asked for permission to apply independently for grants in the future. Mostly, they wanted clear guidelines so that they knew at the outset of each project what they could expect in terms of publishing opportunities. In addition, they found that because of hierarchy and the status of senior academics, there were often no formal avenues of appeal against authorship decisions made by the principal investigator. Resolution of difficulties was often too subjective and dependent on personality, instead of on policy. The researchers were also worried about who should be included in the sometimes lengthy list of authors and how to decide on the order of the names, although they reported that the order of authors was less a problem than being left out altogether. Many had dedicated years to a project, only to have the contract expire before publication. They had moved on to a new contract or to a new location and therefore lost ownership of the project, with a concomitant loss of publication credit.

Another issue that emerged was that all short‐term contract personnel would like to be given the opportunity for at least one first‐authored publication. It is not possible, however, to guarantee first authorship to all junior researchers, even though they may make a substantial contribution to a research project. For example, the research question considered by the project may have been identified before their appointment, with the project protocol written and funding obtained. Typically, the first author is the one most associated with the work. 16 This “agreed” first author is responsible for writing the first draft, but if the researchers have moved on, they may not be available to prepare it. Furthermore, junior researchers may simply lack the experience to draft a paper, or it may require such a degree of rewriting that, in reality, they did not write the first draft at all. Finally, part‐time doctoral students doing contract research simultaneously with a research degree must deal with competing demands on their time to write up their thesis and complete their research project within the time limits of the contract. The time for them to write is taken into consideration by senior staff when the research proposal is prepared and staffing and funding requirements are calculated.

Box 1 Issues raised by the contract researchers group

• Carrying out data collection and analysis and drafting papers only to be refused first authorship or any authorship
• Carrying out data collection and analysis, but leaving the job before writing any drafts and not receiving authorship or acknowledgement
• Carrying out data collection and analysis as well as drafting papers, but not receiving authorship because they have now left their job
• Disagreement with the contents of a paper where a senior staff member is the first author and the researcher is one of the co‐authors

Basis for policy guidelines

Our intent in developing policy guidelines was to create an ethical, professional authorship policy for non‐clinical or contract researchers, which was consistent, clear and fair, while balancing their needs for career advancement with the demands of the RAE and the other academic needs of their departments.

We adopted the ICMJE criteria for authorship as a starting point for our guidelines. The 2004 criteria 12 state that authorship credit should be based on (1) substantial contribution to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published, with authors meeting all of these three conditions. The ICMJE criteria also point out that acquisition of funding, collection of data or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. As we wished to make these criteria inclusive, yet tailored to fit our particular organisational culture, we decided that we should make a clear statement of contributorship at the end of papers as appropriate, including acknowledgement of those who obtained funding, wrote the grant application and the paper, edited drafts, or had a lesser role in collecting or analysing the data. The contribution of supporting characters and agencies is sometimes almost as important as authorship credit and order. The ICMJE guidelines also state that each author “should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content”. 12 Therefore, the basis of our policy in assigning or determining authorship is that each author should be sufficiently familiar with the project to be able to defend the work publicly.

We do not believe in “gift” authorship. This is defined as naming, as an author, a person who does not meet authorship criteria. 17 A gift author is often the head of a research group or the department. Quite simply, increasing the number of undeserving authors on a publication increases the possibility that deserving authors will be omitted. Nor do we support “ghost” authorship. A ghost author is defined as a person who is not listed as an author but who made contributions that merited authorship. 8 Omitting the name of the true author—for example, the contract researcher—at the time of publication constitutes ghosting, which is not consistent with integrity in publication.

We decided to write and distribute formal guidelines as a result of these discussions (box 2). The first step is to ensure that the issue of authorship is raised at the outset of any project. This includes preparing a research plan outlining anticipated papers, along with their proposed authorship, and agreeing this plan among the research team. In addition, the writing of each paper should be preceded by a detailed discussion of its authorship. This should be completed before any drafts are written. Furthermore, having guidelines allows opportunity for appeal and arbitration. To reduce the possibility of future disagreement, we have left open the possibility for negotiation between the researcher and the principal investigator. This allows experienced researchers to negotiate terms for their particular career needs that may not be applicable to inexperienced researchers, as well as for those aspiring to lectureships.

Negotiations between the principal investigator and the researchers on working and publishing arrangements should not be antagonistic, but should progress in a positive direction, on the basis of these guidelines. In this way, more senior researchers who may be aspiring to faculty positions can negotiate terms favourable to their career requirements. These guidelines are not firm rules, but they provide a starting point from which negotiations can proceed without fear of reprisal.

Box 2 Guidelines

• Ensure that whoever writes the first draft gets first authorship. The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co‐authors.
• Ensure that an agreement is negotiated early, which provides clarity of roles and plans for papers.
• Ensure that there is a shared understanding with the supervisor of the duties as defined by the job description.
• Ensure that the annual appraisals are used to discuss progress, set new objectives or explore any areas of difficulty or concern.
• Ensure that avenues of appeal are open to contract researchers.

Furthermore, contract researchers should be encouraged to be more proactive in the development of a publication record, instead of waiting until the end of the research contract period and publication of the results (box 3). For example, they should consider writing a position paper based on their literature review or a methodological critique based on the research study design and getting experience of presenting their ideas at meetings and conferences. Reading the literature and contributing to the correspondence columns is another important step on the journey to independent authorship. This is particularly relevant when the grant has expired before the write‐up has begun, which limits the opportunity to be named as first author.

Implementation

These guidelines, which were developed at the instigation of our researchers and supported by senior academic staff, have now become part of our research policy, but were initially introduced on a voluntary basis. This meant that we did not have formal mechanisms to enforce compliance with them, although they were widely welcomed as providing a tangible and useful framework within which to negotiate research conduct. They have not yet become part of institutional research policy—this would require further extensive negotiations with other academic disciplines outside the medical sciences, within which there may be differences in detail and emphasis.

Box 3 Suggestions for developing a publication record

• Ensure maximisation of your personal publication record by submitting articles or letters to journals in response to other publications. These need not be the top peer‐reviewed journals to begin.
• Ensure an opportunity to prepare research reports for publication. Try to gain first author status and do most of the writing.
• Ensure an opportunity to prepare a conference paper or poster.
• Ensure maximum opportunity for career progression through the pursuit of a higher degree. (This department will pay one third of the part‐time fees upfront and another one third upon successful and timely completion. Arrangements may vary elsewhere.)

On a practical level, the Department of General Practice & Primary Care, King's College London, like many others, is keen to retain well‐trained short‐term researchers. They are valuable team members, without whom the department would not meet the requirements for the RAE. In addition, the learning curve researchers find themselves on in successive contracts is eased, as they have already become familiar with the organisational culture and institutional structure.

Our guidelines were developed in an attempt to correct inadequacies in our current authorship procedures and were based on ICMJE criteria. We recognise that these criteria are not perfect. It is possible to satisfy them without making a truly substantial contribution to the research effort and, as previously discussed, they have not been uniformly adopted by journal editors. There has also been a suggestion 16 that there is a mismatch between the criteria for authorship outlined by the ICMJE and the self‐identified contribution of researchers.

Firm implementation is essential but, unfortunately, misunderstandings will still occur. The publication of research papers continues to offer a range of opportunities for unethical behaviour 9 , 18 , 19 and two factors in particular may counterbalance our preventive efforts on misleading authorship. The first is the inevitable, uneven power relationship between the principal investigator and the researcher, which may impair objective decision making on entitlement to authorship. Secondly, authorship is intrinsically linked with career advancement, and therefore with status and success, and people are motivated to maximise these. For these reasons, we also provide an opportunity for appeal and arbitration by the head of department, although we recognise that this itself may represent a potential conflict of interest, which could be dealt with by identifying an external person or group able to make a final determination on these matters. Formal incorporation of a modified version of these guidelines, taking account of the requirements of other academic disciplines, into institutional research policy will be required if they are to become mandatory and enforceable.

When we began this exercise, we did not assume that these guidelines would resolve all the woes of the contract researcher. Nevertheless, we hope that they will alleviate problems with acquiring authorship, facilitate the career development of trained researchers, improve overall morale within the research community, and foster and promote harmonious working relationships. Indeed, a recent informal survey of department research staff has indicated that several people have found the guidelines helpful in negotiating authorship issues with senior colleagues.

Acknowledgements

We thank members of the Contract Research Group for their suggestions; Kate Cox and Mary Cavanagh for recording and writing the summary of the concerns of the researchers; and Roger Higgs, David Armstrong, Jane Ogden and Leone Ridsdale for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Abbreviations

ICMJE - International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

RAE - Research Assessment Exercise

Competing interests: None declared.

Research on Aluminum Electrolysis from 1970 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis

• Aluminum: Eliminating GHG Emissions
• Published: 13 May 2024

Cite this article

• Jingkai Lin 1 ,
• Chang Liu 1 ,
• Aimin Liu 1 ,
• Zhongning Shi 1 ,
• Zhaowen Wang 1 ,
• Shaoyan Jiang 2 ,
• Gang Wang 3 &
• Fengguo Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1526-3877 1  

The purpose of this work is to analyze the development direction and prospects in the field of aluminum electrolysis and to provide reference information for related research and industry personnel. The scientific papers on aluminum electrolysis published in Scopus database from 1970 to 2023 were collected. Bibliometric methods and knowledge mapping visualization software were used to analyze the papers. Both quantitative statistics and qualitative comparative analysis of global scientific papers on aluminum electrolysis were done in terms of annual paper trends, papers by major countries, authors, institutions, journals and research topics, respectively. The results showed that the number of published papers has had an increasing trend in recent years. The top three productive countries are China, Russia and the US, respectively. The top three productive institutions are Northeastern University, Central South University and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, respectively. TMS Light Metals is the publication with the most papers on aluminum electrolysis. The distribution of research results in the field of aluminum electrolysis was analyzed using a visual analysis chart so that scholars can determine the research trends and hot spots in the field of aluminum electrolysis.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

D. Ashkenazi, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 143, 101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.011 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

A. Kvithyld, D.S. Wong, and E. Herderick, JOM 72, 3321 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04354-7 (2020).

D. Brough and H. Jouhara, Int. J. Thermofluids 1, 100007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2019.100007 (2020).

D. Eheliyagoda, J. Li, Y. Geng, and X.L. Zeng, Resour. Policy 76, 102552 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102552 (2022).

Y.B. Zhang, Y.J. Cai, S. Liu, Z.J. Su, and T. Jiang, J. Clean. Prod. 392, 136214 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136214 (2023).

A. Potysz, E.D. Hullebusch, and J. Kierczak, J. Environ. Manage. 219, 138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.083 (2018).

L. Dion, J. Mark, L.I. Kiss, S. Poncsak, and C.L. Lagace, J. Clean. Prod. 164, 357 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.199 (2017).

W.M. Xie, F.P. Zhou, J.Y. Liu, X.L. Bi, Z.J. Huang, Y.H. Li, D.D. Chen, H.Y. Zou, and S.Y. Sun, J. Clean. Prod. 243, 118624 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118624 (2020).

R. Golmohammadzadeh, F. Faraji, B. Jong, C.P. Gonzalo, and P.C. Banerjee, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev 159, 112202 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112202 (2022).

H.B. He, Y. Wang, J.J. Long, and Z.H. Chen, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 23, 3816 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(13)62934-9 (2013).

J.Y. Liu, Z.Y. Li, Y.Q. Tao, D. Zhang, and K.C. Zhou, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 21, 566 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1003-6326(11)60752-8 (2011).

B.G. Liu, L. Zhang, K.C. Zhou, Z.Y. Li, and H. Wang, Solid State Sci. 13, 1483 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2011.05.004 (2011).

L. Cassayre, P. Chamelot, L. Arurault, L. Massot, P. Palau, and P. Taxil, Corros. Sci. 49, 3610 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2007.03.020 (2007).

D.R. Gunasegaram and D. Molenaar, J. Clean. Prod. 93, 174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.065 (2015).

S.X. Huan, Y.W. Wang, J.P. Peng, Y.Z. Di, B. Li, and L.D. Zhang, Miner. Eng. 154, 106386 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106386 (2020).

S.P. Li, L.P. Niu, Q. Yue, and T.G. Zhang, Energy 239, 122114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122114 (2022).

S.P. Li, T.G. Zhang, L.P. Niu, and Q. Yue, J. Clean. Prod. 290, 125859 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125859 (2021).

Q. Wang, P. Huang, Q.M. Wang, and X.Y. Guo, J. Clean. Prod. 403, 136828 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136828 (2023).

P.K. Muhuri, A.K. Shukla, and A. Abraham, Eng. Appl. Artif. 78, 218 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2018.11.007 (2019).

I.A. Lawal, M. Klink, P. Ndungua, and B. Moodleyc, Environ. Res. 175, 34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.05.005 (2019).

J. Koelmel, M.N.V. Prasad, and K. Pershell, Int. J. Phytoremediation 17, 145 https://doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2013.862207 (2015).

C.Z. Han, R. Wang, N. Xu, X.Y. Wei, Q. Wei, and X. Xu, iLIVER 1, 283 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iliver.2022.11.006 (2022).

A. Berta, C.M. Angel, G.A.S. Clara, and H. Ruben, Psychiatry Res. 308, 114380 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114380 (2022).

H.F. Moed, F.M. Anegon, V.G. Bote, and C.L. Illescas, J. Informetr. 14, 101011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101011 (2020).

N.J.V. Eck and L. Waltman, Scientometrics 84, 523 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 (2010).

UN DESA (The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The United Nations, 1967), https://www.un.org . Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.

USGS (The United States Geological Survey, The United States Congress, 1879), https://www.usgs.gov . Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.

IAI (Global Primary Aluminum Industry, The International Aluminum Institute, 1972), https://international-aluminium.org . Accessed 20 Jan. 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52341402, 51804070), Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (N2325017) and State Key Laboratory of Advanced Refractories Funds (SKLAR202007).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Key Laboratory for Ecological Metallurgy of Multimetallic Mineral (Ministry of Education), Northeastern University, Shenyang, 110819, China

Xin Li, Jingkai Lin, Chang Liu, Aimin Liu, Zhongning Shi, Zhaowen Wang & Fengguo Liu

Liaoning Vocational College of Ecological Engineering, Shenyang, 110101, China

Shaoyan Jiang

State Key Laboratory of Advanced Refractories, Luoyang, 471039, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fengguo Liu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, X., Lin, J., Liu, C. et al. Research on Aluminum Electrolysis from 1970 to 2023: A Bibliometric Analysis. JOM (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-024-06596-1

Download citation

Received : 28 November 2023

Accepted : 15 April 2024

Published : 13 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-024-06596-1

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

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record

• PMID: 38087103
• DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8

Keywords: Publishing; Scientific community.

Publication types

• History, 21st Century
• Retraction of Publication as Topic*
• Scientific Misconduct / history
• Scientific Misconduct / statistics & numerical data