Traditionally, co-first authors are indicated by an asterisk and the order of the individuals is
the decision of the PI
. Once the paper is published, it appears in print as follows: co-Author 1*, co-Author 2*, Author 3, and Author 4.
Is there a consensus that co-first authors should be in alphabetical order and is the editor likely to point this out? No,
“A” has no right to require alphabetical ordering
.
Joint first authors can be indicated by the
inclusion of the statement ‘X and X contributed equally to this paper
‘ in the contributorship statement.
The equal contributions footnote specifies
if two or more authors contributed to the manuscript equally
. It would appear under the author byline on the PDF. If only some of the authors have the equal contribution designation, the footnote will say, “These authors contributed equally”.
Author’s name. “Article Title.” Journal Title, Volume, Issue, Date, Pages. If you have co-authors,
separate each name by a comma, and add “and” before the last author name
.
Shared co-first authorship is defined as
two or more authors
who have worked together on a publication and contributed equally [8].
Works by two authors
should list the last names and first initials separated by an ampersand (&)
. These names should be followed by the date of publication enclosed in parentheses. If the work is a journal article, the title of the article should immediately follow the publication date.
Traditionally, co-first authors are indicated by an asterisk and the order of the individuals is
the decision of the PI
. Once the paper is published, it appears in print as follows: co-Author 1*, co-Author 2*, Author 3, and Author 4.
Shared co-first authorship is defined as
two or more authors
who have worked together on a publication and contributed equally [8]. This equal contribution is often indicated in the fine print of a published paper or in an investigator’s curriculum vitae [9].
Typically the limitation is
six authors
. The lowest limit I have come across was four. In my opinion this is a very dangerous tendency that might do serious damage to future research. Nowadays studies are often very complex and require the contributions of specialists from many fields to be meaningful.
It’s always good to have another paper
, even if you are second author. A hiring or review committee may ask you to describe your own contribution to the paper. As long as you can do that honestly and point to some substantive contribution to the paper, it will be to your benefit.
An author is a person who is involved in creating written content entirely on their own. Co-authors on the other hand are
those who work in tandem with an author
to help them write a piece of literary work.
The first author should be that person who contributed most to the work
, including writing of the manuscript. The sequence of authors should be determined by the relative overall contributions to the manuscript. It is common practice to have the senior author appear last, sometimes regardless of his or her contribution …
As you say, being first author is like the holy grail, but being second author on “someone else’s paper
” is not bad at all
, and while it does not scream “amazing” on a CV, it does bulk up your publication record and shows that you are competent researcher, and contribute to work of publishable standard.
First author is usually the student /researcher who has undertaken the research work. First author is often also referred as the presenting author. … Corresponding author is usually the
senior author
who provides the intellectual input and designs and approves the protocols to be followed in the study.
Is it possible to write both of them in the last place as co-last authors? No. As expected, an author list is not a tree or a weighted graph, but a simple flat (one-dimensional) list.
There is exactly one last author
.
