Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- Published: 26 September 2012
Authorship: Who's on first?
- Amber Dance 1
Nature volume 489 , pages 591–593 ( 2012 ) Cite this article
48k Accesses
68 Citations
204 Altmetric
Metrics details
When scientists collaborate on an experiment and a paper, it can be hard to decide who gets the credit and how much.
Stephen Kosslyn first started to consider how author lists come together when he found himself mediating a dispute. A postdoc and a graduate student each wanted to be listed as the first author on a study. “They both had a case,” recalls Kosslyn. “It got heated.”
Disagreements often happen when contributors put in similar amounts of effort on different aspects of a project, says Kosslyn, a psychologist at Stanford University in California. For example, one person might have developed the idea for the project and the other performed most of the data analysis. “The force of the dispute usually revolves around the feeling that whatever they did was more important than what the other person did,” says Kosslyn.
Such disputes are common. “As authorship is our academic currency, it tends to be a hot-button topic,” says Karen Peterson, scientific ombudsman at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. She says that one-fifth of the disputes she adjudicates concern authorship. Similar conflicts are among the most common issues mediated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), says Virginia Barbour, the organization's chairwoman and chief editor of PLoS Medicine in Cambridge, UK.
Authorship disagreements can be mitigated with careful discussions, explicit lab guidelines and a good understanding of authorship practices in one's field. There is no perfect approach, but deciding on who gets an authorship credit, and how they are ranked, is a crucial part of doing science responsibly.
Precise statistics on authorship disputes are hard to come by, says Mario Biagioli, a science historian at the University of California, Davis, who has studied authorship. Scientists may be reluctant to admit that they have demanded undeserved authorship or otherwise subverted the system, and the US Office of Research Integrity does not track such disagreements because they are not considered scientific misconduct, says Biagioli, who co-edited the book Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science (Routledge, 2002). However, in a 2005 survey 1 of researchers who had received a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), 10% of respondents admitted to assigning authorship “inappropriately”.
Credit confusion
Questions of who deserves credit for a paper are a fairly recent phenomenon, says Biagioli. Once upon a time, a paper had one author, maybe two. But with modern big science and large collaborations, a study might have hundreds or even thousands of authors — as in the case of the ATLAS experiment 2 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland.
And what authorship means varies by scientific discipline. For example, in particle physics, hundreds of researchers may contribute to the development and maintenance of a single piece of equipment, such as an accelerator. At big physics labs such as CERN, everyone who was working at the lab when the discovery was made gets a slot on the author list — even if they haven't seen the paper, says Biagioli. The authors are usually listed alphabetically, regardless of how much they contributed.
In the biological sciences, by contrast, the author list is often strictly ranked. The top spot is at the end of the list, where the principal investigator gets credit for running the lab. The student or postdoc who actually did the work goes first. As for the authors in the middle, it is hard to tell whether they participated a lot or a little, says Biagioli.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has developed authorship guidelines that are used by many journals and institutions. These rules state that to be listed as an author, each researcher must meet three key criteria: they must have been involved in designing the project, collecting data or analysing the results; they must have participated in drafting or revising the manuscript; and they must have approved the final, published paper. Many universities that have their own guidelines base them on the ICMJE's wording, says Biagioli.
Kosslyn has his own definition: the crucial element, he says, is creativity. For example, a researcher could work with study participants in the lab, but just be following a protocol. “Anybody could have run the subjects, so running the subjects is not enough,” says Kosslyn. To earn authorship, the researcher would be intellectually engaged: they might point out a feature of the data that leads the team to reshape the experiment. The paper wouldn't look the same without them.
The author in question
COPE recommends that researchers decide who will be an author and what order they will be listed in before they even conduct experiments, and that the group revisits the author list as a project evolves. A handshake isn't enough to seal the deal — researchers should keep author agreements in writing.
Whenever they occur, authorship discussions need not be confrontational (see 'Aggravation-free authorship' ). Mark Groudine, deputy director of the Hutchinson Center, says that the parties in a dispute should sit down and try to talk the matter over. “People get so locked into their positions that they don't make the effort to understand the other person's point of view,” he says, “and therefore they don't understand why it's a dispute.”
If talking doesn't work, Groudine suggests asking the opinion of an unbiased third party. For example, on one project he collaborated with another principal investigator. When it came to writing up the paper, both wanted to be senior author. They invited two trusted colleagues to mediate.
The jury awarded the senior slot to Groudine, but he felt uneasy about it. He suggested that the other investigator be the corresponding author, who communicates with the journal and any scientists who enquire about the work. “I consider corresponding author as equivalent, almost, to senior author,” says Groudine. Co-senior authorship is also an option, he adds.
But sharing credit too broadly can be risky. Sometimes authors are listed more as a courtesy than because they made a key contribution, says Chris Sneden, an astronomer at the University of Texas at Austin, who will step down from his post as editor of The Astrophysical Journal Letters at the end of this year. Accepting courtesy authorship is a “double-edged sword”, he says. If the paper becomes famous, “every author gets to claim credit”. But if it becomes infamous, everyone gets a share of the blame. Researchers need to be aware of the potential risks of adding their names to manuscripts that they know little about (see 'Ghosts and guests' ).
Gerald Schatten, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, learned that lesson when he lent his good name to a high-profile but eventually discredited stem-cell paper by Woo Suk Hwang, then at Seoul National University. Schatten was investigated by his university, which cleared him of misconduct, but chastised him for 'research misbehaviour' because he failed to check the quality of the science 3 .
The decision to accept courtesy authorship is a matter of preference, says Sneden. “Personally, if I haven't actually contributed something to the specific paper, I just won't have my name on it,” he says. In that case, he politely tells his colleagues that he shouldn't be on the list. “I make sure they understand that it's not a negative reflection on the paper,” he says.
Taken in vain
Sometimes, the recipient of this courtesy may not get the chance to bow out. A researcher who has been added to the author list without their permission might be surprised to see their name when the paper comes out, says Sneden, or even angry if they don't agree with the conclusions. Those who find themselves unexpectedly an author on a paper that they would prefer not to be associated with should contact the editor of the journal, he recommends. The editor will get in touch with the study's corresponding author, and decide whether a corrigendum is necessary to explain that the author in question was not involved with the work.
These kinds of conflicts shouldn't occur. Corresponding authors are expected to have the approval of their co-authors — but some don't realize it. “People, do you read the publication agreement that you sign?” Sneden asks his colleagues. (Often, the answer is no.)
Increasingly, journals are attempting to keep authors in line by asking for details on who did what. In cases of fraud, those descriptions should lay the blame at the right person's door.
Biagioli agrees that delineating each person's contribution should help, but he says that the descriptions are frequently too brief. As an example, he cites the study published this month in Nature by the ENCODE Project Consortium 4 . It ascribes generic tasks such as “data analysis”, “writing” or “scientific management” to large sets of authors, making it impossible to tell, for example, who analysed which data. When scientists sit down to plan a project — and ideally draft the author list — they should also decide how to describe everyone's contributions, says Biagioli. The relevant details will probably vary by discipline, he adds.
In his own lab, Kosslyn has instituted a scheme to make authorship requirements explicit from the outset. As he listened to his student and postdoc arguing their cases several years ago, he started to develop what eventually became a 1,000-point system. The researchers who come up with the idea get 250 points, split between them according to their contribution; writing the paper is worth the same. A further 500 points are available for designing and running the experiment and analysing the data. Researchers who score at least 100 points make the author list, with each person's point total determining their rank.
Disagreements still occur; in those cases, Kosslyn decides how the points are allocated. When the balance of contributions is unclear, he does his best. However, it rarely comes to tallying points. “Usually it's very obvious what the order's going to be,” he says.
In recent years, no disputes have ever risen to the level of the argument that led to the point system. “That,” says Kosslyn, “was the last heated dispute we had in the lab.”
Box 1: Aggravation-free authorship
When many scientists work together, determining authorship isn't always easy. Here are some tips for settling the line-up.
Make sure that you choose collaborators with whom you can work well.
Discuss authorship early, and keep doing so often as a project evolves. Put it in writing.
When there are disputes, first try to talk it out amicably and understand the other person's point of view. For example, try to work out how the idea first came about.
If you must approach your supervisor about an authorship decision that you don't like, keep the tone inquisitive, not accusatory. Explain that you want to understand how authorship was decided.
If a contributor's authorship is in question, it can help to consider what the paper would have looked like without their efforts, and whether someone else could have made the same contribution.
Familiarize yourself with your institution's or journal's authorship guidelines, or those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Use them to back up your case.
Be prepared to compromise or share credit.
If you can't agree among yourselves, engage a supervisor, trusted colleagues or an ombudsman to investigate the matter and make a recommendation. A.D.
Box 2: Ghosts and guests
Authorship can be misused when there is money to be made. Medical journals contain a mixture of original scientific findings and veiled advertisements for drugs, and scientists and physicians must read papers critically to understand a medicine's true merits, says Alastair Matheson, a biomedical-research consultant in Toronto, Canada.
Some pharmaceutical companies make drugs and run clinical trials, then engage medical writers to draft manuscripts. These contributors are often ghostwriters not listed as authors on the paper. Instead, the company's marketing team finds a big academic name to headline the project — even if this guest author makes no contribution to the paper apart from scanning the final version. Companies sometimes use the same technique to produce reviews promoting their latest medicines, says Joseph Ross, a physician who studies health policy at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. One survey 5 found that guests and ghosts haunted 21% of papers published in six leading medical journals in 2008.
“This vast production line of information about drugs is passed off as the work of academics rather than the work of industry,” says Matheson. The companies get to advertise their products; the ghostwriters receive a pay cheque; and the academics get another line on their CVs. But the patients and the integrity of science all lose out, says Matheson.
For example, Merck, a pharmaceutical company based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, minimized reporting of the risks observed for its painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib) until the drug was taken off the market in 2004. Ross was a consultant to people who had taken Vioxx and developed heart problems, or their families, in two court cases against Merck, and he saw some of the company's internal documents 6 . “We were sort of shocked to find pretty rampant evidence that a lot of the trials were ghostwritten,” says Ross. “We would stumble across a full draft of a manuscript that just said, 'external author?'.”
There are ways to identify traces of guests and ghosts in a manuscript: “Check the small print,” says Matheson. That is where a medical writer or communications company may be acknowledged. Funding from a drug-maker is another tell-tale sign. “These are pointers to the likelihood that this is something originated and planned by industry prior to the involvement of the headline authors,” says Matheson. Author disclosures are less helpful, he adds, because academic authors may list several affiliations and it is difficult to tell which commercial relationship is relevant.
With commerce and medicine intimately intertwined, it would be impractical for academics to cut ties with companies, says Matheson. But, he adds, when academics are offered guest authorship, “I would advise them, for the sake of their reputation, to do two things”. First, he says, be more than a guest: make sure that your contribution is author-level. Second, insist that company employees involved in the study are also listed as authors.
Matheson says it is the responsibility of journals to make participation by drug-makers more apparent. He would like to see papers marked right at the top with 'commercial article'. He also suggests that journals use labels to indicate who funded the study, and what drug it supports. A.D.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435 , 737–738 (2005).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
The ATLAS Collaboration J. Instrum. 3 , S08003 (2008).
Maris, E. & Check, E. Nature 439 , 768–769 (2006).
Article ADS Google Scholar
The ENCODE Project Consortium Nature 489 , 57–74 (2012).
Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B. & DeAngelis, C. D. Br. Med. J. 343 , D6128 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S. & Krumholz, H. M. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 299 , 1800–1812 (2008).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Amber Dance is a freelance science writer in Los Angeles, California.,
Amber Dance
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Additional information
See World View p.475
Related links
Related links in nature research.
Authorship policies
Credit where credit's due
Merck accused of disguising its role in research
Taking the industry road
Nature authorship policy
Related external links
ICJME authorship guidelines
Stephen Kosslyn's authorship criteria
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Dance, A. Authorship: Who's on first?. Nature 489 , 591–593 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a
Download citation
Published : 26 September 2012
Issue Date : 27 September 2012
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
This article is cited by
Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.
- Reint Meursinge Reynders
- Gerben ter Riet
- Mario Malički
Systematic Reviews (2022)
Gender disparities in pediatric research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships
- Katja Böhme
- Doris Klingelhöfer
- Michael H. K. Bendels
Pediatric Research (2022)
Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?
Scientometrics (2019)
Text Recycling in Scientific Writing
- Cary Moskovitz
Science and Engineering Ethics (2019)
The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains
- David Johann
- Sabrina Jasmin Mayer
Minerva (2019)
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Careers newsletter — what matters in careers research, free to your inbox weekly.
- 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 .
IMAGES
VIDEO