Academic authorship: who, why and in what order?

Abstract

Health Renaissance, January-April 2013; Vol. 11 No.1; 99-101 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/hren.v11i2.8214

Addressing the vexed issue of authorship and author order: A discussion paper

“…Being listed as the corresponding author is also important and coveted (Bhandari et al., ; Hundley, Teijlingen, & Simkhada, ). In a survey on readers’ interpretations of author roles, Bhandari et al.…”

“…However, determining order may become somewhat arbitrary as the number of authors increases. Determining protocols in large multicentre, cross‐disciplinary and international studies is particularly challenging, as personal and professional practices, expectations and competition for authorship order must be accounted for (Hundley et al., ; Im et al., ; Kornhaber et al., ). The increasing trend among nursing and midwifery researchers and clinicians and researchers from other disciplines to collaborate in large multisite, national and international studies has resulted in an increase in the number of authors and/or contributors per publication (Kahn, ; Lei et al., ).…”

“…In the ecological and environmental sciences, last authors receive as much credit as first authors, as they are assumed to have provided the intellectual and financial impetus for the study (Tscharntke, Hochberg, Rand, Resh, & Krauss, ). In contrast, authors are usually reported in alphabetical order in the disciplines of economics, mathematics and computer sciences (Clement, ; Hundley et al., ). As alphabetical order reflects authors’ surnames by birth or marriage (Hayter et al., ), assumptions about individual contributions have led to claims of “alphabetical discrimination” (Einav & Yariv, ; Frandsen & Nicolaisen, ).…”

“…While some consider the final author as eminent, it may also be assumed that the final author has made little contribution (Hundley et al., ). Still, those who are listed first or last generally receive more credit (or criticism) for the publication than those who are listed in the middle (Lei et al., ; Wager, ).…”

“…Still, those who are listed first or last generally receive more credit (or criticism) for the publication than those who are listed in the middle (Lei et al., ; Wager, ). This may be due, in part, to popular referencing systems that limit the number of names listed in text or in reference lists, thereby reducing the visibility of all authors, other than those listed first or last (Hundley et al., ). Some journals restrict the number of named authors on a paper (e.g.…”