leading author research paper

What Is the Difference between a Lead Author and Co-author?

At first glance, the status of a “lead author” would seem to be fairly straightforward. If most of the work of a particular study is done by only one researcher then his name should come first in the citation. However, unless an agreement is reached among all authors defining what “the most work” means, misunderstandings will inevitably ensue and could lead to a conflict of interest. This situation can quickly deteriorate further to even academic misconduct if the list of authors doesn’t accurately reflect the extent of involvement for each author.

Definition of a “Lead Author” and “Co-Author”

The definition of a lead author and co-author are commonly considered as follows:

• Lead Author:  He/She is also called as the first author and is the one who carries out the research as well as writes and edits the manuscript.
• Co-Author:  He/She is the one who collaborates with the lead author and makes significant contribution to the manuscript. A co-author also shares responsibility and accountability of the research outcome.

Assigning Authorship

One of the most significant issues in involving multiple authors in a research paper is the tendency to not be able to equally attribute each facet of the project to a specific researcher. For example, deference to seniority should not automatically equate to lead authorship status, but very often it does. The second assumption is that having a supervisor or senior author listed will improve both recognition and the chances of publication in a prestigious journal.

Related: Made a decision on the lead and co-author for your research paper? Check out this post for some orders and rules of authorship now!

At the other end, it is often assumed that junior researchers and staff members are grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the team and do not expect to be acknowledged as authors. As they often do much of the legwork for large projects, this assumption is highly disrespectful.

4 Major Criteria to “Qualify” for Authorship Status

Operating on assumptions seriously undermines the importance of correct authorship status since such a designation carries with it academic, financial, and career implications. If the team has never worked together before and is committed to avoiding conflict over this issue, there are several good sources for general rules or codes of conduct that can be used to establish rules to which everyone can agree to comply. For example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( ICMJE ) criteria for authorship that should be met are as follows:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
• Final approval of the work to be published
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Such rules may not help to resolve ego issues where individual team members expect recognition based on what they bring to the team, but by keeping the topic focused on workload and accountability; these rules carry the clear message that authorship is earned not granted.

How Does Co-authorship Work?

• The key to co-authoring is substantial contribution of multiple people authoring the manuscript.
• Co-authoring is made easier with document sharing.
• All authors must have editable access to the manuscript and must be aware of all the revisions that are made till the paper is published.
• Generally, in cases of co-authorship, the Article Processing Cost is divided equally among all authors.
• Ethical guidelines that regulate authorship must be duly followed.

Avoiding Conflict

No matter how many hierarchical ranks exist in your department, it is wise not to transfer the same bureaucratic headaches to your authorship team. There can be only one “lead author”, and the aim should be to recognize the remaining members as “co-authors” who agree, in advance, to what tasks they will each be responsible for. Any issues about the perceived fairness of such designations can then be addressed in advance rather than fighting over performance failure prior to publication.

Role and Responsibilities of Lead Author and Co-Author

The confusion of deciding on authorship is very common among researchers. How have you dealt with this confusion? What kind of conflicts arise when deciding on authorship? Let us know in the comments section below!

You can also visit our  Q&A forum  for frequently asked questions related to different aspects of research writing and publishing answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

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?

If you’ve done more than a handful of citations during your research career, you’ve seen examples of lead and co-authorship in action. This behavior of labeling writers of a paper is becoming more and more common as teamwork in the field of academics takes on steam.

Although it’s not uncommon to have multiple authors on one paper, differentiating between a co-author and the lead author isn’t as cut and dried as one might assume. The first name in the citation would make you believe that this placement means the author did the majority share of the work in the research and writing process. But determining who did more than someone else isn’t something everyone agrees upon, and if this isn’t delineated clearly before the work begins, it can lead to misunderstandings and possible misconduct.

Defining Each Role

Before you start working with a partner, one of the very first things you should do is communicate regarding each other’s definition of authorship. Coming to an agreement early can minimize any arguments or dissent before publishing the works.

To help you get started, here are the working definitions of lead and co-authors according to the accepted principles of academic publishing:

●      A lead author is an individual that has likely initiated the research topic and carried out the research. They take the load of the writing and editing tasks on their shoulders, beginning the document, adding the majority of the content, running final drafts through editing tools, or hiring an editor to review the manuscript. Their name is typically listed first on the manuscript’s authorship sections.

●      Co-authors, on the other hand, will collaborate with the lead author. They are listed as an author because they make a significant contribution to the research and the paper, but it is not a majority contribution. They may come into the project after the lead author has begun the process of creating the experiment and finding funding, but they share the responsibility and accountability for the final outcome.

Use these two definitions to determine who in the team is going to do what tasks, then decide in writing who the lead and co-authors will be. This can be adjusted later with everyone’s approval should one person fail to fill their roles, or another step up and replace a lead author.

Factors Used When Splitting Up Attribution

Still not sure how to split the hairs when it comes to attribution? There are some factors that eliminate assumptions and capitalize on factual data—you know, the stuff that every researcher can agree upon.

Because the label of author vs. co-author can make a major difference in one’s career, both academically and financially, this is a designation to take very seriously. In a new team, or with a new member of the team, these rules tend to get rid of gray areas:

●      Lead authors make substantial contributions throughout almost every stage of the work, including acquisition, interpretation of data, analysis, and outcome

●      Lead authors draft the work and play a major role in the critical revisions prior to publishing

●      Lead authors have final approval of the work before it is sent in for approval or rejection from a publishing agency

●      The team agrees that everyone is accountable for their part of the work, but a lead author takes accountability for the entire project, whether the active part of the job was theirs or not

●      The lead author is the one who is questioned if there are any inaccuracies or questions of integrity; this person follows these investigations through their resolution.

When you clearly display the role of a lead author, many people who thought they wanted the job description don’t mind taking a step back. It’s a lot of pressure, and a hefty load of responsibility in the event that the work has any accountability or integrity issues called into question.

Monitoring Your Authorship With Impactio

However, whether you’re a lead author or your name falls behind someone else’s on the publication, it’s important to follow your authorship impact. You can do this with Impactio’s research tools. Impactio is America’s leading platform in academic analytics tools, and the free report features let you clearly see where your work is leading the way or falling short in certain areas.

With Impactio, you can build a team of professionals from all over the world, work together to come up with authorship decisions, and complete almost all the research you need by connecting online. When you’re ready to boost your professional reputation, start with Impactio.

• Afghanistan
• Åland Islands
• American Samoa
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Bouvet Island
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Cayman Islands
• Central African Republic
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
• Cook Islands
• Côte d'Ivoire
• Curacao !Curaçao
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• Faroe Islands
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• French Southern Territories
• Guinea-Bissau
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Isle of Man
• Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of)
• Korea (Republic of)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liechtenstein
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia (Federated States of)
• Moldova (Republic of)
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Norfolk Island
• North Macedonia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Palestine, State of
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Martin (French part)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• South Sudan
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turkmenistan
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• United States of America
• United States Minor Outlying Islands
• Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
• Virgin Islands (British)
• Virgin Islands (U.S.)
• Wallis and Futuna
• Western Sahara

Office of the Provost

Guidance on authorship in scholarly or scientific publications, general principles.

The public’s trust in and benefit from academic research and scholarship relies upon all those involved in the scholarly endeavor adhering to the highest ethical standards, including standards related to publication and dissemination of findings and conclusions.

Accordingly, all scholarly or scientific publications involving faculty, staff, students and/or trainees arising from academic activities performed under the auspices of Yale University must include appropriate attribution of authorship and disclosure of relevant affiliations of those involved in the work, as described below.

These publications, which, for the purposes of this guidance, include articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication, presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding, must appropriately acknowledge contributions of colleagues involved in the design, conduct or dissemination of the work by neither overly attributing contribution nor ignoring meaningful contributions.

Financial and other supporting relationships of those involved in the scholarly work must be transparent and disclosed in publications arising from the work.

Authorship Standards

Authorship of a scientific or scholarly paper should be limited to those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful and substantive way to its intellectual content. All authors are responsible for fairly evaluating their roles in the project as well as the roles of their co-authors to ensure that authorship is attributed according to these standards in all publications for which they will be listed as an author.

Requirement for Attribution of Authorship

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. All co-authors should have been directly involved in all three of the following:

• planning and contribution to some component (conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation) of the work which led to the paper or interpreting at least a portion of the results;
• writing a draft of the article or revising it for intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published.  All authors should review and approve the manuscript before it is submitted for publication, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. This guidance is intended to allow for such variation to disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Lead Author

The first author is usually the person who has performed the central experiments of the project. Often, this individual is also the person who has prepared the first draft of the manuscript. The lead author is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all other authors meet the requirements for authorship as well as ensuring the integrity of the work itself. The lead author will usually serve as the corresponding author.

Co-Author(s)

Each co-author is responsible for considering his or her role in the project and whether that role merits attribution of authorship. Co-authors should review and approve the manuscript, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

External Collaborators, Including Sponsor or Industry Representatives

Individuals who meet the criteria for authorship should be included as authors irrespective of their institutional affiliations. In general, the use of “ghostwriters” is prohibited, i.e., individuals who have contributed significant portions of the text should be named as authors or acknowledged in the final publication. Industry representatives or others retained by industry who contribute to an article and meet the requirements for authorship or acknowledgement must be appropriately listed as contributors or authors on the article and their industry affiliation must be disclosed in the published article.

Acknowledgements

Individuals who do not meet the requirements for authorship but who have provided a valuable contribution to the work should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication.

Courtesy or Gift Authorship

Individuals do not satisfy the criteria for authorship merely because they have made possible the conduct of the research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. Under no circumstance should individuals be added as co-authors based on the individual’s stature as an attempt to increase the likelihood of publication or credibility of the work. For example, heading a laboratory, research program, section, or department where the research takes place does not, by itself, warrant co-authorship of a scholarly paper. Nor should “gift” co-authorship be conferred on those whose only contributions have been to provide, for example, routine technical services, to refer patients or participants for a study, to provide a valuable reagent, to assist with data collection and assembly, or to review a completed manuscript for suggestions. Although not qualifying as co-authors, individuals who assist the research effort may warrant appropriate acknowledgement in the completed paper.

Senior faculty members should be named as co-authors on work independently generated by their junior colleagues only if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the experimental design, interpretation of findings and manuscript preparation.

Authorship Disputes

Determinations of authorship roles are often complex, delicate and potentially controversial. To avoid confusion and conflict, discussion of attribution should be initiated early in the development of any collaborative publication. For disputes that cannot be resolved amicably, individuals may seek the guidance of the dean of their school or the cognizant deputy provost in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences.

Disclosure of Research Funding and Other Support

In all scientific and scholarly publications and all manuscripts submitted for publication, authors should acknowledge the sources of support for all activities leading to and facilitating preparation of the publication or manuscript, including, but not limited to:

• grant, contract, and gift support;
• salary support if other than institutional funds. Note that salary support that is provided to the University by an external entity does not constitute institutional funds by virtue of being distributed by the University; and
• technical or other support if substantive and meaningful to the completion of the project.

Disclosure of Financial Interests and External Activities

Authors should fully disclose related financial interests and outside activities in publications (including articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication), presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding.

In addition, authors should comply with the disclosure requirements of the University’s Committee on Conflict of Interest.

• Publication Recognition

What is a Corresponding Author?

• 3 minute read
• 409.3K views

Table of Contents

Are you familiar with the terms “corresponding author” and “first author,” but you don’t know what they really mean? This is a common doubt, especially at the beginning of a researcher’s career, but easy to explain: fundamentally, a corresponding author takes the lead in the manuscript submission for publication process, whereas the first author is actually the one who did the research and wrote the manuscript.

The order of the authors can be arranged in whatever order suits the research group best, but submissions must be made by the corresponding author. It can also be the case that you don’t belong in a research group, and you want to publish your own paper independently, so you will probably be the corresponding author and first author at the same time.

Corresponding author meaning:

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Normally, he or she also ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors.

Generally, corresponding authors are senior researchers or group leaders with some – or a lot of experience – in the submission and publishing process of scientific research. They are someone who has not only contributed to the paper significantly but also has the ability to ensure that it goes through the publication process smoothly and successfully.

What is a corresponding author supposed to do?

A corresponding author is responsible for several critical aspects at each stage of a study’s dissemination – before and after publication.

If you are a corresponding author for the first time, take a look at these 6 simple tips that will help you succeed in this important task:

• Ensure that major deadlines are met
• Prepare a submission-ready manuscript
• Put together a submission package
• Get all author details correct
• Ensure ethical practices are followed
• Take the lead on open access

In short, the corresponding author is the one responsible for bringing research (and researchers) to the eyes of the public. To be successful, and because the researchers’ reputation is also at stake, corresponding authors always need to remember that a fine quality text is the first step to impress a team of peers or even a more refined audience. Elsevier’s team of language and translation professionals is always ready to perform text editing services that will provide the best possible material to go forward with a submission or/and a publication process confidently.

Who is the first author of a scientific paper?

The first author is usually the person who made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work. That includes designing the study, acquiring and analyzing data from experiments and writing the actual manuscript. As a first author, you will have to impress a vast group of players in the submission and publication processes. But, first of all, if you are in a research group, you will have to catch the corresponding author’s eye. The best way to give your work the attention it deserves, and the confidence you expect from your corresponding author, is to deliver a flawless manuscript, both in terms of scientific accuracy and grammar.

If you are not sure about the written quality of your manuscript, and you feel your career might depend on it, take full advantage of Elsevier’s professional text editing services. They can make a real difference in your work’s acceptance at each stage, before it comes out to the public.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Through our Language Editing Services , we correct proofreading errors, and check for grammar and syntax to make sure your paper sounds natural and professional. We also make sure that editors and reviewers can understand the science behind your manuscript.

With more than a hundred years of experience in publishing, Elsevier is trusted by millions of authors around the world.

Check our video Elsevier Author Services – Language Editing to learn more about Author Services.

Find more about What is a corresponding author on Pinterest:

• Research Process

What is Journal Impact Factor?

What is a Good H-index?

You may also like.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Find the top authors in a research field: What you need to know

Joanna Wilkinson

Our blog to help you find top authors is part of our Research Smarter series. This series is dedicated to helping you get familiar with your research field. Download our cheat sheet , which brings together top tips for finding relevant journals, papers, and authors in a field. You can also read the related blog posts for each, here .

Before starting any academic writing effort, it is important to get familiar with the shining stars in your research field. The established, prolific and emerging researchers each contribute to the scholarly conversation. It’s up to you to learn who they are and what they achieved in order to further their ideas.

The Web of Science™ makes it easy to find these leading authors, and confidently assess their output and associated citation impact thanks to the built-in citation network. This blog will help you uncover:

• Specific researchers and their papers
• The most prolific authors in your field
• Authors of Hot and Highly Cited Papers
• An author’s impact as a researcher, editor and reviewer

Find specific researchers and their paper

  You will likely have a few researchers in mind when beginning your author search. The Web of Science’s Author Search helps you easily find researchers and their publications in the Web of Science Core Collection™ – regardless of how common or complex their name, or how their name may be presented in different publications over time.

Start your search by entering the full name of the researcher you’re looking for or enter their ResearcherID or ORCiD. These are persistent author identifiers that help to distinguish researchers from their peers, and to ensure a researcher’s work is correctly attributed to them.

You will then be taken to the researcher’s Author Record. This is an initial snapshot of the author’s publications, citation impact and citing articles in the Core Collection, which is based on the intersection of a machine learning algorithm and human curation via Publons™ and ORCID .

Author Records enable you to discover a researcher’s published work and assess their output and associated impact. If you want to dig even deeper, simply click the “View as a set of results to export, analyze, and link to full text” button at the top of the page. You will be directed to a new results page where you can filter and refine the author’s publications, as well as make use of the Analyze Results tool, all of which we discuss below.

You can learn more about Author Search via our Quick Reference Guide or try it out now.

Find the most prolific authors in your field

The Analyze Results tool in the Web of Science helps you discover who the established authors are in your field. They also help you dig deeper into any known and specific author. You can discover the top authors for any keyword search, their organizational affiliation and even the funding agencies they’re most commonly associated with. This tool also reveals the top co-authors for any researchers or group authors for any topic. You can also analyze your results by timespan, which delivers insight into an author’s full body of work.

Access Analyze Results from the results page of any Web of Science keyword search or via an Author Record as described in the section above. Learn more about the tool’s capabilities   or by watching the video below.

Want to gain access to the Web of Science for your organization? Contact our sales team .

Discover top authors of Hot and Highly Cited Papers in your field

Citation counts are a traditional and key measure of scholarly impact. While no metric is perfect in understanding the influence of a researcher as a whole, citations can help. Citations enable you to gauge the research community’s interest in a given paper. They also help signal the impact this work has within a particular discipline or across fields. This impact can either be recent and highlighted as a Hot Paper, or more sustained as a Highly Cited Paper™.

To view the authors of both Highly Cited and Hot Papers, simply:

• Start a Topic Search
• Refine your results by Hot or Highly Cited Papers (located on the left-hand side)
• Analyze results by author ( Find out more about this here).

Uncover an author’s impact as a researcher, editor and reviewer

We mentioned earlier that no metric is perfect in measuring the impact of an author’s complete body of work. Each metric has a purpose and the key is knowing what each metric can measure and what it cannot. Rather than limiting your author search to papers and citations, you can see a more complete picture of an author’s contribution to their field on Publons . Publons is a free platform for researchers to track their publications, citations, peer review metrics and journal editing work. You can view a summary of all researchers’ work on their public profile. This includes their engagement in open and transparent peer review.

Publons profiles also list certain accolades that will help you understand a researcher’s influence at a glance. One is the Highly Cited Researcher™ recognition , presented annually by Clarivate to recognize the world’s most influential researchers. This is demonstrated by the production of multiple highly-cited papers that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and year in the Web of Science. Furthermore, you’ll also see the global Peer Review Awards listed on various profiles. This award recognizes the quantity and quality of researchers’ peer review efforts in their field over the last 12 months.

Browse researchers on Publons today or learn more about creating your own Publons profile in the video below.

Stay connected

Interested in discovering more tips to really understand your research field? You can download our cheat sheet , which brings together top tips for finding relevant journals, papers and authors in your field. You can also read the related blog posts in our Research Smarter series, here.

If you don’t have access to the Web of Science and want to enquire on behalf of your organization, please contact our sales team .

Related posts

Reimagining research impact: introducing web of science research intelligence.

Beyond discovery: AI and the future of the Web of Science

Clarivate welcomes the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information

First Author vs. Corresponding Author? How to Decide Which to Choose

This article discusses the importance of authorship in academic publishing. The first author executes a large portion of the work throughout the research process and signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript, is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities, and serves as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process.

Updated on April 26, 2023

Every process is conducted through a series of steps. The Scientific Method, for example, provides guidelines for navigating the research process and generally includes:

• Making observations
• Identifying a problem
• Formulating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Analyzing the data
• Reporting a conclusion

While the actual procedures may vary between fields, the underlying process remains intact. The same holds true for the publication process:

• Complete your research
• Choose a journal
• Prepare the manuscript
• Submit the manuscript
• Make any revisions
• Publication

Each of these processes contains many more specific steps and processes, including assigning authorship to the research manuscript . This article outlines the importance of authorship, delineates the meanings of first author and corresponding author, and addresses some of the challenges associated with the process.

Why is authorship important?

On the surface, the positioning of a researcher’s name and title on a manuscript seems straightforward, a simple task. Most lay people use the list of names solely for searching and citation purposes.

In reality, though, the order of those names tells a complex story of authorship. It is, in fact, the primary way for a researcher to convey the extent of their contribution to the reader.

To attain authorship on a manuscript, a researcher must not only contribute substantially to the work but also take responsibility and accountability for the information it contains. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends authorship be based on 4 specific criteria related to these broad principles.

With authorship comes both recognition and obligation that have important academic, social, and financial implications. The two most prominent authorship positions are first author and corresponding author .

What is the first author?

The first author position is a coveted spot. No matter how many other authors’ names appear on the manuscript or which referencing style is used, the first author’s last name will be mentioned in every future citation of the work.

For this reason alone, the name of the first author is remembered, indexed, and promoted more than any other. It is not just a status symbol, though. The first author executes a large portion or majority of the work throughout the research process.

First author credit signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution, and, therefore, comes with substantial benefits. The manuscripts of first authors hold substantial value for grant and position applications, staff appraisals and reviews, and many other forms of career development.

First author duties

The designation as first author is not based on academic or professional hierarchy, the prestige, or expertise of the author. It’s based on the inputs and outputs of work. First authors must:

• Make significant, original, and insightful intellectual contributions
• Participate in the conception and planning of the study
• Generate data through performing experiments, conducting literature reviews, and organizing surveys and interviews
• Analyze the results through statistical analysis and by generating graphs, tables, and illustrations
• Write and edit the manuscript
• Help with queries and revisions after submission

The researcher fulfilling all these duties is rightfully the first author.

What is the corresponding author?

Like the first author designation, the title of corresponding author also comes with considerable prestige. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript. In addition to meeting all the preexisting authorship requirements, this person is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities.

The corresponding author is customarily a senior researcher or academic with extensive publishing knowledge and experience. As the primary source of communication for both the publisher and the readers, the corresponding author’s contact information is included within the article.

The corresponding author must have exceptional communication skills. The role assumes primary responsibility for connecting with target journals. They must be organized and meticulous with the substantial volume of tasks associated with the position.

Corresponding author duties

Neither electing a corresponding author nor accepting the position should be taken lightly as it is an essential and long lasting obligation. The duties span from prior to publication to well afterwards and include:

While all corresponding authors serve as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process, some journals outline additional conditions for the role. The National Academy of Sciences offers a table that compiles the corresponding author requirements for various journals.

What if there are authorship disputes or changes?

While openly discussing and defining a research team’s roles during the initial planning phase is vital for curbing authorship disputes, combining this practice with other forward-thinking acts is key. Responsibilities and work status must be addressed during regularly scheduled meetings and special meetings need to be called when a team member is added or ends involvement in the project.

How to avoid authorship disputes

To avoid disputes, teams start by mapping out the most obvious roles, author and non-author contributor, and by rejecting any proposed “non-role.” The input of non-author contributors is narrow in scope, providing technical, administrative or writing assistance, and does not fulfill the previously outlined authorship criteria.

A non-role is any inappropriate or irrelevant participant who will harm the research process, such as unethical types of authors . This category encompasses guest authors, forged authors, ghost authors, and orphan authors and must be avoided at all costs.

Many journals require a document be included with the submission package to delineate author contributions to explain and justify author order. By creating this list as a living document from the outset, a research team fulfills the prerequisite for the publisher and guarantees transparency and fairness throughout.

Because changing authorship after publication is messy, necessitating specific documentation, signatures, and approval, it is frowned upon by journal editors. While taking proactive steps to avoid disputes that may result in this situation saves the research team time and hassle, it does not always alleviate future changes.

The addition, removal, or reordering of authors on a manuscript while actively going through the publication process requires a letter signed by all original and additional authors stating the reason for the change and their mutual agreement. For changes made after publication, an authorship corrigendum must be submitted by all authors per COPE guidelines .

Final thoughts

Getting to the manuscript writing and publication stages of a research project are exciting milestones for everyone involved. Ideally, authorship roles are clearly defined and assigned at this point.

Though the first author and corresponding author positions are sometimes performed by the same person, the obligations of each are unique. The first author undertakes the bulk of work duties and makes a significant intellectual contribution to the research project. The corresponding author carries out the communication and administrative tasks necessary for publishing the manuscript.

Both roles are vital to the research and publication processes. They require intense labor and responsibility. With this comes great recognition and prestige for first authors and corresponding authors.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

A Leading Author Model for the Popularity Effect on Scientific Collaboration

• Conference paper
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• Cite this conference paper

• Hohyun Jung 8 ,
• Frederick Kin Hing Phoa 9 &
• Mahsa Ashouri 9  

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 1072))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications

3757 Accesses

In this paper, we focus on the popularity effect of the scientific collaboration process that popular authors have an advantage in making more publications. Standard network analysis has been used to analyze the scientific collaboration network. However, the standard network has limitations in explaining the scientific output by binary co-authorship relationships since papers have various numbers of authors. We propose a leading author model to understand the popularity effect mechanism while avoiding the use of the standard network structure. The estimation algorithm is presented to analyze the size of the popularity effect. Moreover, we can find influential authors through the estimated genius levels of authors by considering the popularity effect. We apply the proposed model to the real scientific collaboration data, and the results show positive popularity effects in all the collaborative systems. Furthermore, finding influential authors considering the genius level are discussed.

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbasi, A., Chung, K.S.K., Hossain, L.: Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network structure, position and performance. Inf. Process. Manag. 48 (4), 671–679 (2012)

Article   Google Scholar  

Barabasi, A.-L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286 (5439), 509–512 (1999)

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Bianconi, G., Barabasi, A.-L.: Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhys. Lett. 54 (4), 436 (2001)

Bos, J.: Numerical optimization of the thickness distribution of three-dimensional structures with respect to their structural acoustic properties. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 32 (1), 12–30 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-005-0560-y

Dorogovtsev, S.N., Mendes, J.F.F.: Evolution of networks with aging of sites. Phys. Rev. E 62 (2), 1842 (2012)

Fotouhi, B., Rabbat, M.G.: Degree correlation in scale-free graphs. Eur. Phys. J. B 86 (12), 510 (2013)

Ghiasi, G., Harsh, M., Schiffauerova, A.: Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy. Scientometrics 115 (2), 785–815 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2701-2

Gilks, W.R., Wild, P.: Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.: Ser. C (Appl. Stat.) 41 (2), 337–348 (1992)

MATH   Google Scholar  

Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Barabasi, A.-L.: Measuring preferential attachment in evolving networks. Europhys. Lett. 61 (4), 567 (2003)

Jung, H., Lee, J.-G., Kim, S.-H.: On the analysis of fitness change: fitness-popularity dynamic network model with varying fitness. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. 2020 (4), 043407 (2020)

Jung, H., Lee, J.-G., Lee, N., Kim, S.-H.: PTEM: a popularity-based topical expertise model for community question answering. Ann. Appl. Stat. 14 (3), 1304–1325 (2020)

Louis, T.A.: Finding the observed information matrix when using the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B (Methodol.) 44 (2), 226–233 (1982)

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Lu, H., Feng, Y.: A measure of authors’ centrality in co-authorship networks based on the distribution of collaborative relationships. Scientometrics 81 (2), 499–511 (2009)

Lung, R.I., Gasko, N., Suciu, M.A.: A hypergraph model for representing scientific output. Scientometrics 117 (3), 1361–1379 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2908-2

Merton, R.K.: The Matthew effect in science: the reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159 (3810), 56–63 (1968)

Metz, T., Jackle, S.: Patterns of publishing in political science journals: an overview of our profession using bibliographic data and a co-authorship network. PS Polit. Sci. Polit. 50 (1), 157–165 (2017)

Perc, M.: The Matthew effect in empirical data. J. R. Soc. Interface 11 (98), 20140178 (2014)

Rode, S.M., Pennisi, P.R.C., Beaini, T.L., Curi, J.P., Cardoso, S.V., Paranhos, L.R.: Authorship, plagiarism, and copyright transfer in the scientific universe. Clinics 74 , 1312 (2019)

Roy, S., Ravindran, B.: Measuring network centrality using hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM IKDD Conference on Data Sciences, pp. 59–68 (2015)

Google Scholar  

Wang, J.-W., Rong, L.-L., Deng, Q.-H., Zhang, J.-Y.: Evolving hypernetwork model. Eur. Phys. J. B 77 (4), 493–498 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2010-00297-8

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Academia Sinica (Taiwan) Thematic Project grant number AS-TP-109-M07, the Ministry of Science and Technology (Taiwan) grant numbers 107-2118-M-001-011-MY3 and 109-2321-B-001-013, and the National Research Foundation (Korea) grant number 2021R1G1A1094103.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Statistics, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, 01133, South Korea

Hohyun Jung

Institute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei City, 11529, Taiwan

Frederick Kin Hing Phoa & Mahsa Ashouri

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick Kin Hing Phoa .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica, Alimentaria y de Biosistemas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Rosa Maria Benito

IUT Lumière, University of Lyon, Bron Cedex, France

Chantal Cherifi

LIB, UFR Sciences et Techniques, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France

Hocine Cherifi

Grupo Interdisciplinar de Sistemas Complejos, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Leganés, Madrid, Spain

Esteban Moro

Thomas J. Watson College of Engineering and Applied Science, Binghamton University, Binghamton, USA

Luis M. Rocha

Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Tarragona, Spain

Marta Sales-Pardo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Jung, H., Phoa, F.K.H., Ashouri, M. (2022). A Leading Author Model for the Popularity Effect on Scientific Collaboration. In: Benito, R.M., Cherifi, C., Cherifi, H., Moro, E., Rocha, L.M., Sales-Pardo, M. (eds) Complex Networks & Their Applications X. COMPLEX NETWORKS 2021. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 1072. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93409-5_36

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93409-5_36

Published : 01 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-93408-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-93409-5

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this paper

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• 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

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

Paper authorship goes hyper

A single field is behind the rise of thousand-author papers.

The team operating the ATLAS detector at CERN, Switzerland, authored a 5,000 author paper in 2016. Credit: ATLAS Experiment (c) 2007 CERN

A single field is behind the rise of thousand-author papers

30 January 2018

Smriti Mallapaty

ATLAS Experiment (c) 2007 CERN

The team operating the ATLAS detector at CERN, Switzerland, authored a 5,000 author paper in 2016.

Over the past five years, the number of papers in the Nature Index with more than a thousand authors has surged from zero to a hundred. As big science gets even bigger, its scale is increasingly reflected in author lists on scientific papers. More and more experiments are relying on the work of as many people as there were nights for Sheherezade to spin her many tales.

But large-scale projects leading to multi-author papers have created a new challenge for publishing: who is left to peer review a paper when just about all the experts in a given field are among its authors?

And the trend of quadruple-digit author lists shows no sign of abating, says Barry Barish, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 for his contribution to the observation of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). The discovery, and subsequent detections, have been published in several thousand-author papers. "The advent of 'open data' and the long operations of existing facilities has prompted better documentation," for example in the form of publications, he says. “So, expect a significant upward trend in the number of such 1,000 author articles.”

The majority of papers with thousand-plus authors are produced in the physical sciences. The average number of authors on a physical sciences paper more than quadrupled from 9 in 2012 to 39 between 2016. By contrast, a typical chemistry and earth and environmental sciences paper in 2016 had 8 contributors.

One subject in particular is responsible for the rise in populous papers. Analysis by Vincent Larivière at the University of Montreal of publication records in the Web of Science database between 1980 and 2016 revealed that among more than 140 specialized areas of research, nuclear and particle physics was the only one in which the average number of authors to a paper rose far above the rest.

The distinct way particle physicists attribute authorship is significant, says Larivière. Every member involved in a project is typically included in a standard author list, and listed alphabetically in publications. By contrast, in the medical sciences, papers typically only identify the responsible principal investigator and postdoctorate researchers that made substantial contributions to the work.

Paper authorship gives researchers credit, as well as accountability. A 2011 paper by the OPERA collaboration estimated that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light, which turned out to be incorrect. The entire collaboration took responsibility for finding the technical problem, and the coordinator and spokesperson resigned, explains Barish. It offered "a good test case" of how accountability can be managed by so many heads.

The more urgent concern for Barish is related to recognition, rather than responsibility. Being named as one of a thousand authors of a paper, makes it difficult for young researchers to garner esteem for their scientific contribution, and "less able to make an impact on their own."

Larivière says peer review practices need to be reviewed to take account of so-called hyperauthorship. "The rules governing conflicts of interest because of authorship were made for fields that have no hyperauthorship practices," he says.

Data analysis by Willem Sijp.

Main Navigation

• Contact NeurIPS
• Code of Ethics
• Code of Conduct
• Create Profile
• Journal To Conference Track
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Proceedings
• Future Meetings
• Exhibitor Information
• Privacy Policy

NeurIPS 2024

Conference Dates: (In person) 9 December - 15 December, 2024

Homepage: https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2024/

Call For Papers 

Author notification: Sep 25, 2024

Camera-ready, poster, and video submission: Oct 30, 2024 AOE

Submit at: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference  

The site will start accepting submissions on Apr 22, 2024 

Subscribe to these and other dates on the 2024 dates page .

The Thirty-Eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024) is an interdisciplinary conference that brings together researchers in machine learning, neuroscience, statistics, optimization, computer vision, natural language processing, life sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and other adjacent fields. We invite submissions presenting new and original research on topics including but not limited to the following:

• Applications (e.g., vision, language, speech and audio, Creative AI)
• Deep learning (e.g., architectures, generative models, optimization for deep networks, foundation models, LLMs)
• Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)
• General machine learning (supervised, unsupervised, online, active, etc.)
• Infrastructure (e.g., libraries, improved implementation and scalability, distributed solutions)
• Machine learning for sciences (e.g. climate, health, life sciences, physics, social sciences)
• Neuroscience and cognitive science (e.g., neural coding, brain-computer interfaces)
• Optimization (e.g., convex and non-convex, stochastic, robust)
• Probabilistic methods (e.g., variational inference, causal inference, Gaussian processes)
• Reinforcement learning (e.g., decision and control, planning, hierarchical RL, robotics)
• Social and economic aspects of machine learning (e.g., fairness, interpretability, human-AI interaction, privacy, safety, strategic behavior)
• Theory (e.g., control theory, learning theory, algorithmic game theory)

Machine learning is a rapidly evolving field, and so we welcome interdisciplinary submissions that do not fit neatly into existing categories.

Authors are asked to confirm that their submissions accord with the NeurIPS code of conduct .

Formatting instructions:   All submissions must be in PDF format, and in a single PDF file include, in this order:

• The submitted paper
• Technical appendices that support the paper with additional proofs, derivations, or results 
• The NeurIPS paper checklist  

Other supplementary materials such as data and code can be uploaded as a ZIP file

The main text of a submitted paper is limited to nine content pages , including all figures and tables. Additional pages containing references don’t count as content pages. If your submission is accepted, you will be allowed an additional content page for the camera-ready version.

The main text and references may be followed by technical appendices, for which there is no page limit.

The maximum file size for a full submission, which includes technical appendices, is 50MB.

Authors are encouraged to submit a separate ZIP file that contains further supplementary material like data or source code, when applicable.

You must format your submission using the NeurIPS 2024 LaTeX style file which includes a “preprint” option for non-anonymous preprints posted online. Submissions that violate the NeurIPS style (e.g., by decreasing margins or font sizes) or page limits may be rejected without further review. Papers may be rejected without consideration of their merits if they fail to meet the submission requirements, as described in this document. 

Paper checklist: In order to improve the rigor and transparency of research submitted to and published at NeurIPS, authors are required to complete a paper checklist . The paper checklist is intended to help authors reflect on a wide variety of issues relating to responsible machine learning research, including reproducibility, transparency, research ethics, and societal impact. The checklist forms part of the paper submission, but does not count towards the page limit.

Please join the NeurIPS 2024 Checklist Assistant Study that will provide you with free verification of your checklist performed by an LLM here . Please see details in our  blog

Supplementary material: While all technical appendices should be included as part of the main paper submission PDF, authors may submit up to 100MB of supplementary material, such as data, or source code in a ZIP format. Supplementary material should be material created by the authors that directly supports the submission content. Like submissions, supplementary material must be anonymized. Looking at supplementary material is at the discretion of the reviewers.

We encourage authors to upload their code and data as part of their supplementary material in order to help reviewers assess the quality of the work. Check the policy as well as code submission guidelines and templates for further details.

Use of Large Language Models (LLMs): We welcome authors to use any tool that is suitable for preparing high-quality papers and research. However, we ask authors to keep in mind two important criteria. First, we expect papers to fully describe their methodology, and any tool that is important to that methodology, including the use of LLMs, should be described also. For example, authors should mention tools (including LLMs) that were used for data processing or filtering, visualization, facilitating or running experiments, and proving theorems. It may also be advisable to describe the use of LLMs in implementing the method (if this corresponds to an important, original, or non-standard component of the approach). Second, authors are responsible for the entire content of the paper, including all text and figures, so while authors are welcome to use any tool they wish for writing the paper, they must ensure that all text is correct and original.

Double-blind reviewing:   All submissions must be anonymized and may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy.  This policy applies to any supplementary or linked material as well, including code.  If you are including links to any external material, it is your responsibility to guarantee anonymous browsing.  Please do not include acknowledgements at submission time. If you need to cite one of your own papers, you should do so with adequate anonymization to preserve double-blind reviewing.  For instance, write “In the previous work of Smith et al. [1]…” rather than “In our previous work [1]...”). If you need to cite one of your own papers that is in submission to NeurIPS and not available as a non-anonymous preprint, then include a copy of the cited anonymized submission in the supplementary material and write “Anonymous et al. [1] concurrently show...”). Any papers found to be violating this policy will be rejected.

OpenReview: We are using OpenReview to manage submissions. The reviews and author responses will not be public initially (but may be made public later, see below). As in previous years, submissions under review will be visible only to their assigned program committee. We will not be soliciting comments from the general public during the reviewing process. Anyone who plans to submit a paper as an author or a co-author will need to create (or update) their OpenReview profile by the full paper submission deadline. Your OpenReview profile can be edited by logging in and clicking on your name in https://openreview.net/ . This takes you to a URL "https://openreview.net/profile?id=~[Firstname]_[Lastname][n]" where the last part is your profile name, e.g., ~Wei_Zhang1. The OpenReview profiles must be up to date, with all publications by the authors, and their current affiliations. The easiest way to import publications is through DBLP but it is not required, see FAQ . Submissions without updated OpenReview profiles will be desk rejected. The information entered in the profile is critical for ensuring that conflicts of interest and reviewer matching are handled properly. Because of the rapid growth of NeurIPS, we request that all authors help with reviewing papers, if asked to do so. We need everyone’s help in maintaining the high scientific quality of NeurIPS.  

Please be aware that OpenReview has a moderation policy for newly created profiles: New profiles created without an institutional email will go through a moderation process that can take up to two weeks. New profiles created with an institutional email will be activated automatically.

Venue home page: https://openreview.net/group?id=NeurIPS.cc/2024/Conference

If you have any questions, please refer to the FAQ: https://openreview.net/faq

Ethics review: Reviewers and ACs may flag submissions for ethics review . Flagged submissions will be sent to an ethics review committee for comments. Comments from ethics reviewers will be considered by the primary reviewers and AC as part of their deliberation. They will also be visible to authors, who will have an opportunity to respond.  Ethics reviewers do not have the authority to reject papers, but in extreme cases papers may be rejected by the program chairs on ethical grounds, regardless of scientific quality or contribution.  

Preprints: The existence of non-anonymous preprints (on arXiv or other online repositories, personal websites, social media) will not result in rejection. If you choose to use the NeurIPS style for the preprint version, you must use the “preprint” option rather than the “final” option. Reviewers will be instructed not to actively look for such preprints, but encountering them will not constitute a conflict of interest. Authors may submit anonymized work to NeurIPS that is already available as a preprint (e.g., on arXiv) without citing it. Note that public versions of the submission should not say "Under review at NeurIPS" or similar.

Dual submissions: Submissions that are substantially similar to papers that the authors have previously published or submitted in parallel to other peer-reviewed venues with proceedings or journals may not be submitted to NeurIPS. Papers previously presented at workshops are permitted, so long as they did not appear in a conference proceedings (e.g., CVPRW proceedings), a journal or a book.  NeurIPS coordinates with other conferences to identify dual submissions.  The NeurIPS policy on dual submissions applies for the entire duration of the reviewing process.  Slicing contributions too thinly is discouraged.  The reviewing process will treat any other submission by an overlapping set of authors as prior work. If publishing one would render the other too incremental, both may be rejected.

Anti-collusion: NeurIPS does not tolerate any collusion whereby authors secretly cooperate with reviewers, ACs or SACs to obtain favorable reviews. 

Author responses:   Authors will have one week to view and respond to initial reviews. Author responses may not contain any identifying information that may violate the double-blind reviewing policy. Authors may not submit revisions of their paper or supplemental material, but may post their responses as a discussion in OpenReview. This is to reduce the burden on authors to have to revise their paper in a rush during the short rebuttal period.

After the initial response period, authors will be able to respond to any further reviewer/AC questions and comments by posting on the submission’s forum page. The program chairs reserve the right to solicit additional reviews after the initial author response period.  These reviews will become visible to the authors as they are added to OpenReview, and authors will have a chance to respond to them.

After the notification deadline, accepted and opted-in rejected papers will be made public and open for non-anonymous public commenting. Their anonymous reviews, meta-reviews, author responses and reviewer responses will also be made public. Authors of rejected papers will have two weeks after the notification deadline to opt in to make their deanonymized rejected papers public in OpenReview.  These papers are not counted as NeurIPS publications and will be shown as rejected in OpenReview.

Publication of accepted submissions:   Reviews, meta-reviews, and any discussion with the authors will be made public for accepted papers (but reviewer, area chair, and senior area chair identities will remain anonymous). Camera-ready papers will be due in advance of the conference. All camera-ready papers must include a funding disclosure . We strongly encourage accompanying code and data to be submitted with accepted papers when appropriate, as per the code submission policy . Authors will be allowed to make minor changes for a short period of time after the conference.

Contemporaneous Work: For the purpose of the reviewing process, papers that appeared online within two months of a submission will generally be considered "contemporaneous" in the sense that the submission will not be rejected on the basis of the comparison to contemporaneous work. Authors are still expected to cite and discuss contemporaneous work and perform empirical comparisons to the degree feasible. Any paper that influenced the submission is considered prior work and must be cited and discussed as such. Submissions that are very similar to contemporaneous work will undergo additional scrutiny to prevent cases of plagiarism and missing credit to prior work.

Plagiarism is prohibited by the NeurIPS Code of Conduct .

Other Tracks: Similarly to earlier years, we will host multiple tracks, such as datasets, competitions, tutorials as well as workshops, in addition to the main track for which this call for papers is intended. See the conference homepage for updates and calls for participation in these tracks. 

Experiments: As in past years, the program chairs will be measuring the quality and effectiveness of the review process via randomized controlled experiments. All experiments are independently reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Financial Aid: Each paper may designate up to one (1) NeurIPS.cc account email address of a corresponding student author who confirms that they would need the support to attend the conference, and agrees to volunteer if they get selected. To be considered for Financial the student will also need to fill out the Financial Aid application when it becomes available.

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

Google DeepMind’s new AlphaFold can model a much larger slice of biological life

AlphaFold 3 can predict how DNA, RNA, and other molecules interact, further cementing its leading role in drug discovery and research. Who will benefit?

• James O'Donnell archive page

Google DeepMind has released an improved version of its biology prediction tool, AlphaFold, that can predict the structures not only of proteins but of nearly all the elements of biological life.

It’s a development that could help accelerate drug discovery and other scientific research. The tool is currently being used to experiment with identifying everything from resilient crops to new vaccines. 

While the previous model, released in 2020, amazed the research community with its ability to predict proteins structures, researchers have been clamoring for the tool to handle more than just proteins. 

Now, DeepMind says, AlphaFold 3 can predict the structures of DNA, RNA, and molecules like ligands, which are essential to drug discovery. DeepMind says the tool provides a more nuanced and dynamic portrait of molecule interactions than anything previously available. 

“Biology is a dynamic system,” DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis told reporters on a call. “Properties of biology emerge through the interactions between different molecules in the cell, and you can think about AlphaFold 3 as our first big sort of step toward [modeling] that.”

AlphaFold 2 helped us better map the human heart , model antimicrobial resistance , and identify the eggs of extinct birds , but we don’t yet know what advances AlphaFold 3 will bring. 

Mohammed AlQuraishi, an assistant professor of systems biology at Columbia University who is unaffiliated with DeepMind, thinks the new version of the model will be even better for drug discovery. “The AlphaFold 2 system only knew about amino acids, so it was of very limited utility for biopharma,” he says. “But now, the system can in principle predict where a drug binds a protein.”

Isomorphic Labs, a drug discovery spinoff of DeepMind, is already using the model for exactly that purpose, collaborating with pharmaceutical companies to try to develop new treatments for diseases, according to DeepMind. 

AlQuraishi says the release marks a big leap forward. But there are caveats.

“It makes the system much more general, and in particular for drug discovery purposes (in early-stage research), it’s far more useful now than AlphaFold 2,” he says. But as with most models, the impact of AlphaFold will depend on how accurate its predictions are. For some uses, AlphaFold 3 has double the success rate of similar leading models like RoseTTAFold. But for others, like protein-RNA interactions, AlQuraishi says it’s still very inaccurate. 

DeepMind says that depending on the interaction being modeled, accuracy can range from 40% to over 80%, and the model will let researchers know how confident it is in its prediction. With less accurate predictions, researchers have to use AlphaFold merely as a starting point before pursuing other methods. Regardless of these ranges in accuracy, if researchers are trying to take the first steps toward answering a question like which enzymes have the potential to break down the plastic in water bottles, it’s vastly more efficient to use a tool like AlphaFold than experimental techniques such as x-ray crystallography. 

A revamped model  

AlphaFold 3’s larger library of molecules and higher level of complexity required improvements to the underlying model architecture. So DeepMind turned to diffusion techniques, which AI researchers have been steadily improving in recent years and now power image and video generators like OpenAI’s DALL-E 2 and Sora. It works by training a model to start with a noisy image and then reduce that noise bit by bit until an accurate prediction emerges. That method allows AlphaFold 3 to handle a much larger set of inputs.

That marked “a big evolution from the previous model,” says John Jumper, director at Google DeepMind. “It really simplified the whole process of getting all these different atoms to work together.”

It also presented new risks. As the AlphaFold 3 paper details, the use of diffusion techniques made it possible for the model to hallucinate, or generate structures that look plausible but in reality could not exist. Researchers reduced that risk by adding more training data to the areas most prone to hallucination, though that doesn’t eliminate the problem completely. 

Restricted access

Part of AlphaFold 3’s impact will depend on how DeepMind divvies up access to the model. For AlphaFold 2, the company released the open-source code , allowing researchers to look under the hood to gain a better understanding of how it worked. It was also available for all purposes, including commercial use by drugmakers. For AlphaFold 3, Hassabis said, there are no current plans to release the full code. The company is instead releasing a public interface for the model called the AlphaFold Server , which imposes limitations on which molecules can be experimented with and can only be used for noncommercial purposes. DeepMind says the interface will lower the technical barrier and broaden the use of the tool to biologists who are less knowledgeable about this technology.

Artificial intelligence

What’s next for generative video.

OpenAI's Sora has raised the bar for AI moviemaking. Here are four things to bear in mind as we wrap our heads around what's coming.

• Will Douglas Heaven archive page

Is robotics about to have its own ChatGPT moment?

Researchers are using generative AI and other techniques to teach robots new skills—including tasks they could perform in homes.

• Melissa Heikkilä archive page

Sam Altman says helpful agents are poised to become AI’s killer function

Open AI’s CEO says we won’t need new hardware or lots more training data to get there.

An AI startup made a hyperrealistic deepfake of me that’s so good it’s scary

Synthesia's new technology is impressive but raises big questions about a world where we increasingly can’t tell what’s real.

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.

Special Features

Vendor voice.

Some scientists can't stop using AI to write research papers

If you read about 'meticulous commendable intricacy' there's a chance a boffin had help.

Linguistic and statistical analyses of scientific articles suggest that generative AI may have been used to write an increasing amount of scientific literature.

Two academic papers assert that analyzing word choice in the corpus of science publications reveals an increasing usage of AI for writing research papers. One study , published in March by Andrew Gray of University College London in the UK, suggests at least one percent – 60,000 or more – of all papers published in 2023 were written at least partially by AI.

A second paper published in April by a Stanford University team in the US claims this figure might range between 6.3 and 17.5 percent, depending on the topic.

Both papers looked for certain words that large language models (LLMs) use habitually, such as “intricate,” “pivotal,” and “meticulously." By tracking the use of those words across scientific literature, and comparing this to words that aren't particularly favored by AI, the two studies say they can detect an increasing reliance on machine learning within the scientific publishing community.

In Gray's paper, the use of control words like "red," "conclusion," and "after" changed by a few percent from 2019 to 2023. The same was true of other certain adjectives and adverbs until 2023 (termed the post-LLM year by Gray).

In that year use of the words "meticulous," "commendable," and "intricate," rose by 59, 83, and 117 percent respectively, while their prevalence in scientific literature hardly changed between 2019 and 2022. The word with the single biggest increase in prevalence post-2022 was “meticulously”, up 137 percent.

The Stanford paper found similar phenomena, demonstrating a sudden increase for the words "realm," "showcasing," "intricate," and "pivotal." The former two were used about 80 percent more often than in 2021 and 2022, while the latter two were used around 120 and almost 160 percent more frequently respectively.

• Beyond the hype, AI promises leg up for scientific research
• AI researchers have started reviewing their peers using AI assistance
• Boffins deem Google DeepMind's material discoveries rather shallow
• Turns out AI chatbots are way more persuasive than humans

The researchers also considered word usage statistics in various scientific disciplines. Computer science and electrical engineering were ahead of the pack when it came to using AI-preferred language, while mathematics, physics, and papers published by the journal Nature, only saw increases of between five and 7.5 percent.

The Stanford bods also noted that authors posting more preprints, working in more crowded fields, and writing shorter papers seem to use AI more frequently. Their paper suggests that a general lack of time and a need to write as much as possible encourages the use of LLMs, which can help increase output.

Potentially the next big controversy in the scientific community

Using AI to help in the research process isn't anything new, and lots of boffins are open about utilizing AI to tweak experiments to achieve better results. However, using AI to actually write abstracts and other chunks of papers is very different, because the general expectation is that scientific articles are written by actual humans, not robots, and at least a couple of publishers consider using LLMs to write papers to be scientific misconduct.

Using AI models can be very risky as they often produce inaccurate text, the very thing scientific literature is not supposed to do. AI models can even fabricate quotations and citations, an occurrence that infamously got two New York attorneys in trouble for citing cases ChatGPT had dreamed up.

"Authors who are using LLM-generated text must be pressured to disclose this or to think twice about whether doing so is appropriate in the first place, as a matter of basic research integrity," University College London’s Gray opined.

The Stanford researchers also raised similar concerns, writing that use of generative AI in scientific literature could create "risks to the security and independence of scientific practice." ®

Narrower topics

• Large Language Model
• Machine Learning
• Neural Networks
• Tensor Processing Unit

Broader topics

• Self-driving Car

Send us news

Other stories you might like

Big brains divided over training ai with more ai: is model collapse inevitable, deepmind spinoff isomorphic claims alphafold 3 predicts bio-matter down to the dna, with run:ai acquisition, nvidia aims to manage your ai kubes, easing the cloud migration journey.

Google Search results polluted by buggy AI-written code frustrate coders

Investment analyst accuses palantir of ai washing, mitre promises a cute little 17-pflops ai super for the rest of uncle sam's agencies, tiktok becomes first platform to require watermarking of ai content, add ai servers to the list of idevices apple silicon could soon power, politicians call for ban on 'killer robots' and the curbing of ai weapons, warren buffett voices ai fears, likens tech to atom bomb, what's with ai boffins strapping gopros to toddlers we take a closer look.

• Advertise with us

Our Websites

• The Next Platform
• Blocks and Files

Your Privacy

• Cookies Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Ts & Cs

Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024

• Entertainment

LG Display's Research Results on OLEDoS for VR Selected as Distinguished Paper at SID Display Week 2024

SEOUL, South Korea , May 13, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- LG Display, the world's leading innovator of display technologies, announced today that its research paper on OLEDoS for virtual reality (VR) has been selected as a Distinguished Paper of the Year by the Society for Information Display (SID), the world's most prestigious display organization, at SID Display Week 2024. The company has been recognized for its technical leadership in the next-generation of displays.

LG Display's paper is focused on examining ultra-high brightness and ultra-high resolution OLEDoS for VR, having developed OLEDoS by introducing major technologies that have significantly improved its performance.

Out of more than 500 papers submitted by display researchers around the world, only the top 5% that publicize truly outstanding results are recognized for their excellence each year by SID.

As it is OLED deposited on a silicon wafer substrate, OLEDoS is attracting attention as a way to deliver AR and VR in high definition even on the micro scale. In particular, VR displays require higher screen brightness and resolution than general displays to increase the viewer's sense of immersion when external light is blocked.

LG Display's research team has been recognized for successfully achieving a brightness of 10,000 nits, a 40% enhancement over the existing standard, by combining its newly developed high-performance OLED elements with its own development of OLED light extraction maximization technology called Micro Lens Array (MLA).

If a high-performance OLEDoS display is used in VR devices, it is expected to provide a more vivid and lifelike virtual reality experience.

LG Display will present fifteen next-generation display research papers at Display Week 2024, including the results of its OLEDoS research. It will propose a technology that improves the three-dimensional effect of a glasses-free light field display and a performance measurement method for stretchable displays that can be stretched up, down, left, and right.

In addition, the company plans to present its production process optimization research results while also promoting its differentiated technological leadership. These results will feature a high-efficiency OLED light emitting element design and defect prediction system, both of which were developed using artificial intelligence.

"We will continue to create new customer value and strengthen our technological competitiveness through next-generation display research and development that implements ultra-high brightness and resolution," said Soo-young Yoon, CTO and Executive Vice President at LG Display.

About LG Display

LG Display Co., Ltd. [NYSE: LPL, KRX: 034220] is the world's leading innovator of display technologies, including thin-film transistor liquid crystal and OLED displays. The company manufactures display panels in a broad range of sizes and specifications primarily for use in TVs, notebook computers, desktop monitors, automobiles, and various other applications, including tablets and mobile devices. LG Display currently operates manufacturing facilities in Korea and China , and back-end assembly facilities in Korea, China , and Vietnam . The company has approximately 70,707 employees operating worldwide. For more news and information about LG Display, please visit www.lgdisplay.com .

Media Contact:

Joo Yeon Jennifer Ha , Manager, Communication Team Email: [email protected]