For this reason, it’s best for the editor and authors involved to establish one “corresponding author”.
Journals should require the corresponding author to verify the author list with all other authors and to serve as the primary contact for all other ethical assessments.
Researchers, or anyone else who has contributed to a paper in a meaningful way, who fall short of the requirements for authorship should still be recognised for their work if possible.
Often this takes the form of an “Acknowledgments” section.
If an authorship dispute should arise, it’s important that journals do not attempt to serve as an arbiter or intermediary.
In cases where authors are unable to reach a consensus, journals should refer them to their institution(s).The first author is generally considered to be the primary contributor, and the last author may be seen as providing general oversight and direction (as the head of the lab, for example).Authors in the middle have contributed sufficiently to be listed on the paper, but perhaps in more limited ways than the primary authors.Danielle manages the company’s blog and creates resources to help journal editors and researchers navigate the evolving journal-publishing landscape.is the Marketing Communications Manager at AJE, where she works to provide helpful resources and information to researchers across the globe.Although mentoring students to be first authors can be challenging, the rewards can also be immense—for both the students and the faculty mentors who are up to the challenge. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.9 Cross Ref Full Text | Google Scholar Mc Kelvie, S., and Standing, L. A literature search revealed not a single article on the topic of undergraduates publishing as first author. Even if faculty members are made aware of this fact (as I hope to accomplish with this article), other barriers exist. Trials, tribulations, and triumphs: research and publishing from the undergraduate perspective. For example, many faculty work under a reward system in which publications (and first author publications in particular) determine tenure, promotion, pay, likelihood of securing grants, and job security (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992; Fine and Kurdek, 1993; Wilcox, 1998). Much has been written about the ethics of assigning authorship credit in the sciences and social sciences (see Maurer, 2017, for a review), and attempts have been made to fairly determine authorship order by (a) surveying past authors about their experiences (e.g., Wagner et al., 1994; Sandler and Russell, 2005; Moore and Griffin, 2006; Geelhoed et al., 2007), (b) assessing reactions to hypothetical authorship scenarios (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992; Bartle et al., 2000; Apgar and Congress, 2005), (c) proposing step-by-step decision-making models (Fine and Kurdek, 1993; Foster and Ray, 2012; Maurer, 2017), and (d) outlining quantitative systems that assign weighted points to tasks associated with publishing (e.g., Winston, 1985; Kosslyn, 2015). The consensus seems to be that writing the manuscript is either the most important factor in determining first authorship (e.g., Winston, 1985; Bartle et al., 2000; Apgar and Congress, 2005) or at least tied with idea origination as the most important factor (Wagner et al., 1994; Kosslyn, 2015). Fiske (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 50–52. Incorporating a professional-grade all-class project into a research methods course.