Every so often, I see a post on social media expressing frustration with an internal conflict over authorship ordering of an academic paper. This always intrigued me because I've never given it much thought in my career. I figured this wasn't such an important point in academic-style research – it looks like I was mistaken. Many view this as crucial to the progression of their professional careers and academic profiles. So, I was thinking, how did it get this way? Why did such a culture form? I always figured that the first author was the primary driver of the research, meaning they conducted the majority of the mental and/or physical execution of tasks, analysis, and writing. My view was other co-authors provided additional data, analysis, editing, and intellectual input. I think this is the case, but I wanted to delve deeper into the topic to better understand.
The Genesis of Author Order
The tradition of author ordering in academic manuscripts seems to date back to the beginning of academic writing as a tradition. The notable difference is that only in recent times, say the last 40 years or so, there has been a trend of papers with several or even hundreds of co-authors [1], often leading to the phenomena of hyperauthorship [2]. The positioning of co-authorship has evolved to reflect the hierarchy of contributions towards the research. However, as the academic landscape evolves, so does the discourse around this tradition and the challenges.
The author ordering in academic manuscripts is not governed by a universal rule but rather occurs because of a collective decision of the authors involved in the preparation of data, analysis, and writing of a manuscript. As mentioned, the order usually reflects the level of contribution, with the first author often making the most significant contributions, and the last author typically being the lead Principal Investigator (PI) who provided intellectual scope1, supervised the work, and/or financed the project [3-4].
The Weight of Authorship Position
Historically, the hierarchical structure of authorship in academic manuscripts often places a disproportionate emphasis on the first and last author positions, overshadowing the contributions of other authors listed in between.
The first authorship is highly coveted as it is often perceived as a symbol of the most significant contribution and leadership in the research project. The first author is usually responsible for the majority of the work, data analysis, and manuscript writing. They are also typically tasked with addressing the reviewers' comments and revising the manuscript accordingly. This position is particularly crucial for early-career academic researchers, as it is seen as a demonstration of their capability for independent research and can significantly impact their academic progression and job prospects [3-5].
Conversely, the last author position is often occupied by a senior researcher or the principal investigator (PI) who leads the project. The last author may also be the person who proposed and secured the funding for the research idea. They provide overall guidance, mentorship, and are tasked with ensuring the integrity and quality of the research. The last authorship position is used to reflect leadership within the research team and is often seen as a symbol of established expertise in the field [3-6].
The middle authors should also make valuable contributions to the research project. Their roles can range from providing technical expertise, contributing to data collection and analysis, to assisting in manuscript preparation. However, the hierarchical nature of author listing can often downplay the importance of middle authors, which can sometimes lead to a lack of recognition and credit for their contributions. The specific order of middle authors may reflect the relative magnitude of their contributions, although this is not always clear, and practices can vary widely across different fields and research groups [7].
The current system of author ordering can potentially perpetuate a culture of hierarchy and competition, while not inherently negative, it may hinder collaborative efforts and equitable recognition of contributions. So, what if we were to rethink the traditional authorship ordering and adopt alternative systems that promote transparency and inclusivity which foster an increased collaborative academic culture?
Rethinking Author Order
If one were to deemphasize the importance of author ordering, it would place an emphasis on the work contained within the manuscript. The traditional authorship ordering system tends to focus on accolades of the researchers, which is a human desire, but is not in the spirit of fundamental research. A good compromise may be the notable solution and adoption of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), which classifies author contributions into 14 different roles, and attempts to diminish the importance of author order [8]. This system promotes transparency and provides a clearer understanding of each author's contributions.
Some alternative approaches I could imagine include:
- Alphabetical Ordering: Implementing alphabetical ordering of author names as a defacto standard removes the hierarchical implication of author positions. This method is simple and straightforward. A visual problem though is that names with letters early on in the alphabet will always appear first and thus will give a perception for those who have yet to adapt from the traditional format, a false sense of contribution/importance.
- Rotational Authorship: In collaborative research projects, author order could be rotated in different publications to ensure fair recognition of contributions over time. This is a poor solution in my opinion, with very little upside.
- Detailed Contribution Statements: Requiring detailed contribution statements by each co-author, that is approved by other co-authors, that specifies the role of each author. This is similar to CRediT, however, allows for a more nuanced representation. The challenge is the verbosity that can be generated and whether readers will read such statements.
- Group Authorship: In cases of large consortia, adopting a group authorship approach with a supplementary file detailing individual contributions can be a valuable solution. This is particularly useful when all co-authors conducted the work from within the same institution/group/lab. For other scenarios where multiple institutions/groups/labs are involved, a more broader solution would be for a non-profit organization to exist which could create unique identifiers for that set of authors and consortium. If ORCID can be leveraged for such thing it could be a fruitful solution. Furthermore, the organization could retrieve or store CRediT for each co-author of a publication in a consortium.
I particularly like the Group Authorship solution because it removes the visual perception on manuscripts of authorship importance, but allows for interested readers to find out who was involved in the study and their role/importance. However, it probably would never take hold because this just isn't natural; its why, in my opinion, communism doesn't work, people want a certain level of recognition/acclaim because it gives value to their efforts.
These alternative ideas aim to foster a culture of inclusivity and reasonable recognition in an effort to steer away from the traditional hierarchical representation of authorship. However, perhaps the fact that we are focusing on authorship position at all is what is creating the problem! In other words, can we change the mindset of academics and those alike?
Footnotes
-
I'm using the term "intellectual scope" to mean that the PI is the person who came up with the original concept that seeded the work. In many cases, the final work deviates significantly from the original idea, but credit is usually given regardless to acknowledge importance of conceptualization and ideation. ↩
References
[1] M. Thelwall, N. Maflahi, Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion, Quantitative Science Studies. 3 (2022) 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00188.
[2] M. Hosseini, J. Lewis, H. Zwart, B. Gordijn, An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication, Sci Eng Ethics. 28 (2022) 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3.
[3] J. Avula, H. Avula, Authors, authorship order, the moving finger writes, J Indian Soc Periodontol. 19 (2015) 258. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.145782.
[4] E. Pain, How to navigate authorship of scientific manuscripts, Science. (2021). https://www.science.org/content/article/how-navigate-authorship-scientific-manuscripts.
[5] S. Bhattacharya, Authorship issue explained, Indian J Plast Surg. 43 (2010) 233. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0358.73482.
[6] Who should be the last author on a research paper?, Editage Insights. (2016). https://www.editage.com/insights/who-should-be-the-last-author-on-a-research-paper (accessed October 30, 2023).
[7] A. Zbar, E. Frank, Significance of Authorship Position: An Open-Ended International Assessment, The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 341 (2011) 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181f683a1.
[8] What author order can (and cannot) tell us: Understanding contributorship, The Official PLOS Blog. (2022). https://theplosblog.plos.org/2022/01/contributorship (accessed October 30, 2023).
