second author research paper

Loading metrics

Open Access

Correspondence

Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

• Michael E Hochberg,
• Tatyana A Rand,
• Vincent H Resh,
• Jochen Krauss
• Teja Tscharntke, 
• Michael E Hochberg, 
• Tatyana A Rand, 
• Vincent H Resh, 

Published: January 16, 2007

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018
• Reader Comments

Citation: Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, Resh VH, Krauss J (2007) Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications. PLoS Biol 5(1): e18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018

Copyright: © 2007 Tscharntke et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this article.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The increasing tendency across scientific disciplines to write multiauthored papers [ 1 , 2 ] makes the issue of the sequence of contributors' names a major topic both in terms of reflecting actual contributions and in a posteriori assessments by evaluation committees. Traditionally, the first author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, whereas the position of subsequent authors is usually decided by contribution, alphabetical order, or reverse seniority. Ranking the first or second author in a two-author paper is straightforward, but the meaning of position becomes increasingly arbitrary as the number of authors increases beyond two. Criteria for authorship have been discussed at length, because of the inflationary increase in the number of authors on papers submitted to biomedical journals and the practice of “gift” authorship [ 3 , 4 ], but a simple way to determine credit associated with the sequence of authors' names is still missing [ 4–7 ] ( http://www.councilscienceeditors.org ).

The situation in our area of research—the ecological and environmental sciences—has changed in recent years. Following informal practices in the biomedical sciences, the last author often gets as much credit as the first author, because he or she is assumed to be the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research. Evaluation committees and funding bodies often take last authorship as a sign of successful group leadership and make this a criterion in hiring, granting, and promotion. This practice is unofficial, and hence not always followed, meaning that sometimes last authors “mistakenly” benefit when they actually are not principal investigators. Moreover, there is no accepted yardstick in assessing the actual contribution of a group leader to given scientific publications [ 8 , 9 ], so interpretation of author sequence can be like a lottery. Hence, one really does not know if being last author means that the overall contribution was the most or least important.

Although reducing evaluation of authors' complex contributions to simple metrics is regrettable, in reality it is already in practice in most evaluation committees. Hence, in our opinion, we need a simple and straightforward approach to estimate the credit associated with the sequence of authors' names that is free from any arbitrary rank valuation. In multiauthored papers, the first author position should clearly be assigned to the individual making the greatest contribution [ 4–6 ], as is common practice. However, authors often adopt different methods of crediting contributions for the following authors, because of very different traditions across countries and research fields, resulting in very different criteria that committees adopt to quantify author's contributions [ 8 , 9 ]. For example, some authors use alphabetical sequence, while others think that the last author position has great importance or that the second author position is the second most important. Still others detail each author's contribution in a footnote.

We suggest that the approach taken should be stated in the acknowledgements section, and evaluation committees are asked to weigh the contribution of each author based on the criteria given by the authors. This would make reviewers aware that there are different cultures to authorship order. The usual and informal practice of giving the whole credit (impact factor) to each author of a multiauthored paper is not adequate and overemphasises the minor contributions of many authors ( Table 1 ). Similarly, evaluation of authors according to citation frequencies means often overrating resulting from high-impact but multiauthored publications. The following approaches may be identified.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Comparison of the Credit for Contributions to This Paper under the Four Different Models Suggested in the Text

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.t001

(1) The “sequence-determines-credit” approach (SDC). The sequence of authors should reflect the declining importance of their contribution, as suggested by previous authors [ 4–6 ]. Authorship order only reflects relative contribution, whereas evaluation committees often need quantitative measures. We suggest that the first author should get credit for the whole impact (impact factor), the second author half, the third a third, and so forth, up to rank ten. When papers have more than ten authors, the contribution of each author from the tenth position onwards is then valuated just 5%.

(2) The “equal contribution” norm (EC). Authors use alphabetical sequence to acknowledge similar contributions or to avoid disharmony in collaborating groups. We suggest that the contribution of each author is valuated as an equal proportion (impact divided by the number of all authors, but a minimum of 5%).

(3) The “first-last-author-emphasis” norm (FLAE). In many labs, the great importance of last authorship is well established. We suggest that the first author should get credit of the whole impact, the last author half, and the credit of the other authors is the impact divided by the number of all authors [as in (2)].

(4) The “percent-contribution-indicated” approach (PCI). There is a trend to detail each author's contribution (following requests of several journals) [ 7 ]. This should also be used to establish the quantified credit.

The SDC approach (as a new suggestion), the EC norm (alphabetical order), the FLAE norm, and the PCI approach may be combined (e.g., FLAE and SDC), but need to be explicitly mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Our suggestion of explicit indication of the method applied, including the simple method of weighing authors' rank in publications in a quantitative way, will avoid misinterpretations and arbitrary a posteriori designations of author contributions. Multidisciplinary scientific collaboration indeed must be encouraged, but we need to avoid misinterpretations so that current and future scientific communities can evaluate author contributions.

Acknowledgments

We applied the SDC approach for the sequence of authors. We are grateful for the stimulating discussions and comments by Jan Bengtsson, Charles Godfray, Bradford A. Hawkins, Christian Körner, William F. Laurance, Bernhard Schmid, Wim van der Putten, and Louise Vet.

• View Article
• Google Scholar

• Insights blog

Defining authorship in your research paper

Co-authors, corresponding authors, and affiliations, why does authorship matter.

Authorship gives credit and implies accountability for published work, so there are academic, social and financial implications.

It is very important to make sure people who have contributed to a paper, are given credit as authors. And also that people who are recognized as authors, understand their responsibility and accountability for what is being published.

There are a couple of types of authorship to be aware of.

Co-author Any person who has made a significant contribution to a journal article. They also share responsibility and accountability for the results of the published research.

Corresponding author If more than one author writes an article, you’ll choose one person to be the corresponding author. This person will handle all correspondence about the article and sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors. They are responsible for ensuring that all the authors’ contact details are correct, and agree on the order that their names will appear in the article. The authors also will need to make sure that affiliations are correct, as explained in more detail below.

Open access publishing

There is increasing pressure on researchers to show the societal impact of their research.

Open access can help your work reach new readers, beyond those with easy access to a research library.

How common is co-authorship and what are the challenges collaborating authors face? Our white paper  Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A global view explores the experiences of 894 researchers from 62 countries.

If you are a named co-author, this means that you:

Made a significant contribution to the work reported. That could be in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.

Have drafted or written, substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.

Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.

Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.

Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article. Share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Every submission to our medical and health science journals should comply with the International Committee on Medical Journal Ethics’  definition of authorship .

Please include any other form of specific personal contribution in the acknowledgments section of your paper.

Affiliations: get it right

Your affiliation in the manuscript should be the institution where you conducted the research. You should also include details of any funding received from that institution.

If you have changed affiliation since completing the research, your new affiliation can be acknowledged in a note. We can’t normally make changes to affiliation after the journal accepts your article.

Changes to authorship

Authorship changes post-submission should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and any requests for authors to be removed or added must be in line with our authorship criteria.  

If you need to make an authorship change, you will need to contact the Journal Editorial Office or Editorial team in the first instance. You will be asked to complete our Authorship Change request form ; all authors (including those you are adding or removing) must sign this form. This will be reviewed by the Editor (and in some instances, the publisher). 

Please note any authorship change is at the Editor’s discretion; they have the right to refuse any authorship change they do not believe conforms with our authorship policies. 

Some T&F journals do not allow any authorship changes post-submission; where this is applicable, this will be clearly indicated on the journal homepage or on the ‘instructions for authors’ page. 

If the corresponding author changes before the article is published (for example, if a co-author becomes the corresponding author), you will need to write to the editor of the journal and the production editor. You will need to confirm to them that both authors have agreed the change.

Requested changes to the co-authors or corresponding authors following publication of the article may be considered, in line with the  authorship guidelines issued by COPE , the Committee on Publication Ethics. Please  see our corrections policy  for more details. Any requests for changes must be made by submitting the completed  Authorship Change Request form .

Authorship Change Request form

Important: agree on your corresponding author and the order of co-authors, and check all affiliations and contact details before submitting.

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies on Authorship

The following instructions (part of our  Editorial Policies ) apply to all Taylor & Francis Group journals.

Corresponding author

Co-authors must agree on who will take on the role of corresponding author. It is then the responsibility of the corresponding author to reach consensus with all co-authors regarding all aspects of the article, prior to submission. This includes the authorship list and order, and list of correct affiliations.

The corresponding author is also responsible for liaising with co-authors regarding any editorial queries. And, they act on behalf of all co-authors in any communication about the article throughout: submission, peer review, production, and after publication. The corresponding author signs the publishing agreement on behalf of all the listed authors.

AI-based tools and technologies for content generation

Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria.

All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions. Therefore, LLMs and other similar types of tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Where AI tools are used in content generation, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately in the authored work.

Changes in authorship

Any changes in authorship prior to or after publication must be agreed upon by all authors – including those authors being added or removed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to obtain confirmation from all co-authors and to provide a completed Authorship Change Request form to the editorial office.

If a change in authorship is necessary after publication, this will be amended via a post-publication notice. Any changes in authorship must comply with our criteria for authorship. And requests for significant changes to the authorship list, after the article has been accepted, may be rejected if clear reasons and evidence of author contributions cannot be provided.

Assistance from scientific, medical, technical writers or translators

Contributions made by professional scientific, medical or technical writers, translators or anyone who has assisted with the manuscript content, must be acknowledged. Their source of funding must also be declared.

They should be included in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section with an explanation of their role, or they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are advised to consult the  joint position statement  from American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP).

Assistance with experiments and data analysis

Any significant contribution to the research reported, should be appropriately credited according to our authorship criteria.

If any parts of the research were outsourced to professional laboratories or to data analysts, this should be clearly stated within the manuscript, alongside an explanation of their role. Or, they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Acknowledgments

Any individuals who have contributed to the article (for example, technical assistance, formatting-related writing assistance, translators, scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to developing the article), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be listed by name and affiliation in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section.

It is the responsibility of the authors to notify and obtain permission from those they wish to identify in this section. The process of obtaining permission should include sharing the article, so that those being identified can verify the context in which their contribution is being acknowledged.

Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. large language models) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.

Biographical note

Please supply a short biographical note for each author. This could be adapted from your departmental website or academic networking profile and should be relatively brief (e.g. no more than 200 words).Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Author name changes on published articles

There are many reasons why an author may change their name in the course of their career. And they may wish to update their published articles to reflect this change, without publicly announcing this through a correction notice. Taylor & Francis will update journal articles where an author makes a request for their own name change, full or partial, without the requirement for an accompanying correction notice. Any pronouns in accompanying author bios and declaration statements will also be updated as part of the name change, if required.

When an author requests a name change, Taylor & Francis will:

Change the metadata associated with the article on our Taylor & Francis Online platform.

Update the HTML and PDF version of the article.

Resupply the new metadata and article content to any abstracting and indexing services that have agreements with the journal. Note: such services may have their own bibliographic policies regarding author name changes. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis cannot be held responsible for controlling updates to articles on third party sites and services once an article has been disseminated.

If an author wishes for a correction notice to be published alongside their name change, Taylor & Francis will accommodate this on request. But, it is not required for an author name change to be made.

To request a name change, please contact your Journal’s Production Editor or contact us.

Taylor & Francis consider it a breach of publication ethics to request a name change for an individual without their explicit consent.

Additional resources

Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences  – our white paper based on a global survey of researchers’ experiences of collaboration.

Discussion Document: Authorship  – produced by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), this updated guide includes practical advice on addressing the most common ethical issues in this area

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies

Ethics for authors  – guidelines, support, and your checklist.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

A Guide to Authorship in Research and Scholarly Publishing

Scientific and academic authorship in research publishing is a critical part of a researcher’s career. However, the concept of authorship in research p ublication can be confusing for early career researchers, who often find it difficult to assess whether their or others’ contribution to a project are enough to warrant authorship. Today, there are more opportunities than ever to collaborate with researchers, not just across the globe but also across different disciplines and even those outside academia. This rapid growth in the number of global research collaborations, and has also led to an increase in the number of authors per paper. 1 For instance, a paper that was published on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN set the record for the largest author list with over 5,000 authors. 2 Such cases act as catalysts for ongoing discussions among the research community about authorship in research and who should and who shouldn’t be credited and held accountable for published research.  

Table of Contents

So how do you define authorship in research?

The most common definition of authorship in research is the one established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to ICMJE’s guidelines, to be acknowledged as an author, a researcher should have met all of the following criteria. An author would have made major contributions to the research idea or study design, or data collection and analysis. They would have been part of the process of writing and revising the research manuscript and would be called on to give final approval on the version being published. Finally, an author must ensure the research is done ethically and accurately and should be willing to stand up and defend their work as needed.  

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the best time to decide authorship in research , in terms of who should be named authors and in what order , is before the research project is initiated. It recommends researchers create and keep written author agreements and to revisit the author list as the project evolves. 3 Consequently, any changes authorship in research either in a researcher’s level of involvement, or the addition or exclusion of members during the project must be approved by all involved and must reflect in the author byline.

Understanding the difference between author and contributor roles

Given the constant increase in scholarly publishing and the continuing pressures to “publish or perish,” many researchers are choosing to participate in multi-author projects. This makes it harder to decide on authorship in research as one needs to differentiate between authors, co-authors, and contributors and this often leads to confusion over accountabilities and entitlements.  

• Lead authors or first authors in publication are those who undertake original research and also drafts and edits the research manuscript. They also play a major role in journal submission and must review and agree on the corrections submitted by all the authors.  
• Co-authors are those who make a major contribution to and are also equally responsible for the research results; they work hand in hand with lead authors to help them create and revise the research paper for journal submission.  
• Corresponding authors are those who sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors and manage all the correspondence around the article. They are tasked with ensuring ethical guidelines are followed, author affiliations and contact details are correct, and that the authors are listed in the right order.  
• Contributors are those who may have provided valuable resources and assistance with planning and conducting the research but may not have written or edited the research paper. While not assigned authorship in research papers, they are typically listed at the end of the article along with a precise description of each person’s contribution.  

Getting the order of listing authors right

The order of authorship in research being published plays an important role for scientific merit; probably as important to a researcher’s career as the number of papers they published. However, the practice of accrediting positions when deciding authorship in research differs greatly between different research streams and often becomes a bone of contention among authors.  

There are some common formats used to determine author listing in research. One common format is when authors are generally listed in the order of their contributions, with the main author of the paper being listed at the end. This honor is typically reserved for the head of the department in which the research was carried out. This kind of listing sometimes creates angst among authors, as they feel that the order does not reflect the significance of their contributions. Another common format is one where authors are listed alphabetically. While this might seem like a more equitable solution when listing authorship in research , it has its own disadvantages. If the main author’s name begins with a letter late in the alphabet, it is very likely to be overlooked when the paper is cited by others, clearly not a very happy scenario for the main author.  

Unfortunately, globally and across research arenas, there is still no uniform understanding or system for the ordering of author names on research papers. And journals do not normally step in to arbitrate such disputes on authorship in research . Individual authors and contributors are expected to evaluate their role in a project and attribute authorship in research papers in keeping with set publication standards. Clearly, the responsibility falls entirely on authors to discuss and agree on the best way to list authors.  

Avoiding unethical authorship in research  

Correctly conveying who is responsible for published scientific research is at the very core of scientific integrity. However, despite clearly outlined guidelines and definitions, scholarly publishing continues to be plagued by numerous issues and ethical concerns regarding the attribution of authorship in research . According to The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), 4 instances of unethical authorship in research papers include:

• Changing the order of authors in an unjustified and improper way
• Using personal authority to add someone as an author without their contributing to the work
• Eliminating contributor names from later publications
• Adding a name as author without the person’s consent

A uthors need to be aware of and understand the nuances of ethical authorship in research papers to avoid confusion, conflict and ill-will among the co-authors and contributors. While researchers receive recognition and credit for their intellectual work, they are also held accountable for what they publish. It is important to remember that the primary responsibility of research authors is to preserve scientific integrity, which can only happen if research is conducted and documented ethically.  

• Mazzocchi F. Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. EMBO Reports, June 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549017/
• Castelvecchi, D. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature, May 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17567
• Dance, A. Authorship: Who’s on first?. Nature, September 2012. https://www.nature.com/articles/nj7417-591a
• Unethical Authorship; How to Avoid? Blog – Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development, February 2020. https://icndbm.cikd.ca/unethical-authorship-how-to-avoid/

Related Posts

Back to School – Lock-in All Access Pack for a Year at the Best Price

Journal Turnaround Time: Researcher.Life and Scholarly Intelligence Join Hands to Empower Researchers with Publication Time Insights 

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Order Authors in Scientific Papers

It’s rare that an article is authored by only one or two people anymore. In fact, the average original research paper has five authors these days. The growing list of collaborative research projects raises important questions regarding the author order for research manuscripts and the impact an author list has on readers’ perceptions.

With a handful of authors, a group might be inclined to create an author name list based on the amount of work contributed. What happens, though, when you have a long list of authors? It would be impractical to rank the authors by their relative contributions. Additionally, what if the authors contribute relatively equal amounts of work? Similarly, if a study was interdisciplinary (and many are these days), how can one individual’s contribution be deemed more significant than another’s?

Why does author order matter?

Although an author list should only reflect those who have made substantial contributions to a research project and its draft manuscript (see, for example, the authorship guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ), we’d be remiss to say that author order doesn’t matter. In theory, everyone on the list should be credited equally since it takes a team to successfully complete a project; however, due to industry customs and other practical limitations, some authors will always be more visible than others.

The following are some notable implications regarding author order.

• The “first author” is a coveted position because of its increased visibility. This author is the first name readers will see, and because of various citation rules, publications are usually referred to by the name of the first author only. In-text or bibliographic referencing rules, for example, often reduce all other named authors to “et al.” Since employers use first-authorship to evaluate academic personnel for employment, promotion, and tenure, and since graduate students often need a number of first-author publications to earn their degree, being the lead author on a manuscript is crucial for many researchers, especially early in their career.
• The last author position is traditionally reserved for the supervisor or principal investigator. As such, this person receives much of the credit when the research goes well and the flak when things go wrong. The last author may also be the corresponding author, the person who is the primary contact for journal editors (the first author could, however, fill this role as well, especially if they contributed most to the work).
• Given that there is no uniform rule about author order, readers may find it difficult to assess the nature of an author’s contribution to a research project. To address this issue, some journals, particularly medical ones, nowadays insist on detailed author contribution notes (make sure you check the target journal guidelines before submission to find out how the journal you are planning to submit to handles this). Nevertheless, even this does little to counter how strongly citation rules have enhanced the attention first-named authors receive.

Common Methods for Listing Authors

The following are some common methods for establishing author order lists.

• Relative contribution. As mentioned above, the most common way authors are listed is by relative contribution. The author who made the most substantial contribution to the work described in an article and did most of the underlying research should be listed as the first author. The others are ranked in descending order of contribution. However, in many disciplines, such as the life sciences, the last author in a group is the principal investigator or “senior author”—the person who often provides ideas based on their earlier research and supervised the current work.
• Alphabetical list . Certain fields, particularly those involving large group projects, employ other methods . For example, high-energy particle physics teams list authors alphabetically.
• Multiple “first” authors . Additional “first” authors (so-called “co-first authors”) can be noted by an asterisk or other symbols accompanied by an explanatory note. This practice is common in interdisciplinary studies; however, as we explained above, the first name listed on a paper will still enjoy more visibility than any other “first” author.
• Multiple “last” authors . Similar to recognizing several first authors, multiple last authors can be recognized via typographical symbols and footnotes. This practice arose as some journals wanted to increase accountability by requiring senior lab members to review all data and interpretations produced in their labs instead of being awarded automatic last-authorship on every publication by someone in their group.
• Negotiated order . If you were thinking you could avoid politics by drowning yourself in research, you’re sorely mistaken. While there are relatively clear guidelines and practices for designating first and last authors, there’s no overriding convention for the middle authors. The list can be decided by negotiation, so sharpen those persuasive argument skills!

As you can see, choosing the right author order can be quite complicated. Therefore, we urge researchers to consider these factors early in the research process and to confirm this order during the English proofreading process, whether you self-edit or received manuscript editing or paper editing services , all of which should be done before submission to a journal. Don’t wait until the manuscript is drafted before you decide on the author order in your paper. All the parties involved will need to agree on the author list before submission, and no one will want to delay submission because of a disagreement about who should be included on the author list, and in what order (along with other journal manuscript authorship issues).

On top of that, journals sometimes have clear rules about changing authors or even authorship order during the review process, might not encourage it, and might require detailed statements explaining the specific contribution of every new/old author, official statements of agreement of all authors, and/or a corrigendum to be submitted, all of which can further delay the publication process. We recommend periodically revisiting the named author issue during the drafting stage to make sure that everyone is on the same page and that the list is updated to appropriately reflect changes in team composition or contributions to a research project.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 26 September 2012

Authorship: Who's on first?

• Amber Dance 1  

Nature volume  489 ,  pages 591–593 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

46k Accesses

68 Citations

215 Altmetric

Metrics details

When scientists collaborate on an experiment and a paper, it can be hard to decide who gets the credit and how much.

Stephen Kosslyn first started to consider how author lists come together when he found himself mediating a dispute. A postdoc and a graduate student each wanted to be listed as the first author on a study. “They both had a case,” recalls Kosslyn. “It got heated.”

Disagreements often happen when contributors put in similar amounts of effort on different aspects of a project, says Kosslyn, a psychologist at Stanford University in California. For example, one person might have developed the idea for the project and the other performed most of the data analysis. “The force of the dispute usually revolves around the feeling that whatever they did was more important than what the other person did,” says Kosslyn.

Such disputes are common. “As authorship is our academic currency, it tends to be a hot-button topic,” says Karen Peterson, scientific ombudsman at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. She says that one-fifth of the disputes she adjudicates concern authorship. Similar conflicts are among the most common issues mediated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), says Virginia Barbour, the organization's chairwoman and chief editor of PLoS Medicine in Cambridge, UK.

Authorship disagreements can be mitigated with careful discussions, explicit lab guidelines and a good understanding of authorship practices in one's field. There is no perfect approach, but deciding on who gets an authorship credit, and how they are ranked, is a crucial part of doing science responsibly.

Precise statistics on authorship disputes are hard to come by, says Mario Biagioli, a science historian at the University of California, Davis, who has studied authorship. Scientists may be reluctant to admit that they have demanded undeserved authorship or otherwise subverted the system, and the US Office of Research Integrity does not track such disagreements because they are not considered scientific misconduct, says Biagioli, who co-edited the book Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science (Routledge, 2002). However, in a 2005 survey 1 of researchers who had received a grant from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), 10% of respondents admitted to assigning authorship “inappropriately”.

Credit confusion

Questions of who deserves credit for a paper are a fairly recent phenomenon, says Biagioli. Once upon a time, a paper had one author, maybe two. But with modern big science and large collaborations, a study might have hundreds or even thousands of authors — as in the case of the ATLAS experiment 2 at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland.

And what authorship means varies by scientific discipline. For example, in particle physics, hundreds of researchers may contribute to the development and maintenance of a single piece of equipment, such as an accelerator. At big physics labs such as CERN, everyone who was working at the lab when the discovery was made gets a slot on the author list — even if they haven't seen the paper, says Biagioli. The authors are usually listed alphabetically, regardless of how much they contributed.

In the biological sciences, by contrast, the author list is often strictly ranked. The top spot is at the end of the list, where the principal investigator gets credit for running the lab. The student or postdoc who actually did the work goes first. As for the authors in the middle, it is hard to tell whether they participated a lot or a little, says Biagioli.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has developed authorship guidelines that are used by many journals and institutions. These rules state that to be listed as an author, each researcher must meet three key criteria: they must have been involved in designing the project, collecting data or analysing the results; they must have participated in drafting or revising the manuscript; and they must have approved the final, published paper. Many universities that have their own guidelines base them on the ICMJE's wording, says Biagioli.

Kosslyn has his own definition: the crucial element, he says, is creativity. For example, a researcher could work with study participants in the lab, but just be following a protocol. “Anybody could have run the subjects, so running the subjects is not enough,” says Kosslyn. To earn authorship, the researcher would be intellectually engaged: they might point out a feature of the data that leads the team to reshape the experiment. The paper wouldn't look the same without them.

The author in question

COPE recommends that researchers decide who will be an author and what order they will be listed in before they even conduct experiments, and that the group revisits the author list as a project evolves. A handshake isn't enough to seal the deal — researchers should keep author agreements in writing.

Whenever they occur, authorship discussions need not be confrontational (see 'Aggravation-free authorship' ). Mark Groudine, deputy director of the Hutchinson Center, says that the parties in a dispute should sit down and try to talk the matter over. “People get so locked into their positions that they don't make the effort to understand the other person's point of view,” he says, “and therefore they don't understand why it's a dispute.”

If talking doesn't work, Groudine suggests asking the opinion of an unbiased third party. For example, on one project he collaborated with another principal investigator. When it came to writing up the paper, both wanted to be senior author. They invited two trusted colleagues to mediate.

The jury awarded the senior slot to Groudine, but he felt uneasy about it. He suggested that the other investigator be the corresponding author, who communicates with the journal and any scientists who enquire about the work. “I consider corresponding author as equivalent, almost, to senior author,” says Groudine. Co-senior authorship is also an option, he adds.

But sharing credit too broadly can be risky. Sometimes authors are listed more as a courtesy than because they made a key contribution, says Chris Sneden, an astronomer at the University of Texas at Austin, who will step down from his post as editor of The Astrophysical Journal Letters at the end of this year. Accepting courtesy authorship is a “double-edged sword”, he says. If the paper becomes famous, “every author gets to claim credit”. But if it becomes infamous, everyone gets a share of the blame. Researchers need to be aware of the potential risks of adding their names to manuscripts that they know little about (see 'Ghosts and guests' ).

Gerald Schatten, a stem-cell researcher at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, learned that lesson when he lent his good name to a high-profile but eventually discredited stem-cell paper by Woo Suk Hwang, then at Seoul National University. Schatten was investigated by his university, which cleared him of misconduct, but chastised him for 'research misbehaviour' because he failed to check the quality of the science 3 .

The decision to accept courtesy authorship is a matter of preference, says Sneden. “Personally, if I haven't actually contributed something to the specific paper, I just won't have my name on it,” he says. In that case, he politely tells his colleagues that he shouldn't be on the list. “I make sure they understand that it's not a negative reflection on the paper,” he says.

Taken in vain

Sometimes, the recipient of this courtesy may not get the chance to bow out. A researcher who has been added to the author list without their permission might be surprised to see their name when the paper comes out, says Sneden, or even angry if they don't agree with the conclusions. Those who find themselves unexpectedly an author on a paper that they would prefer not to be associated with should contact the editor of the journal, he recommends. The editor will get in touch with the study's corresponding author, and decide whether a corrigendum is necessary to explain that the author in question was not involved with the work.

These kinds of conflicts shouldn't occur. Corresponding authors are expected to have the approval of their co-authors — but some don't realize it. “People, do you read the publication agreement that you sign?” Sneden asks his colleagues. (Often, the answer is no.)

Increasingly, journals are attempting to keep authors in line by asking for details on who did what. In cases of fraud, those descriptions should lay the blame at the right person's door.

Biagioli agrees that delineating each person's contribution should help, but he says that the descriptions are frequently too brief. As an example, he cites the study published this month in Nature by the ENCODE Project Consortium 4 . It ascribes generic tasks such as “data analysis”, “writing” or “scientific management” to large sets of authors, making it impossible to tell, for example, who analysed which data. When scientists sit down to plan a project — and ideally draft the author list — they should also decide how to describe everyone's contributions, says Biagioli. The relevant details will probably vary by discipline, he adds.

In his own lab, Kosslyn has instituted a scheme to make authorship requirements explicit from the outset. As he listened to his student and postdoc arguing their cases several years ago, he started to develop what eventually became a 1,000-point system. The researchers who come up with the idea get 250 points, split between them according to their contribution; writing the paper is worth the same. A further 500 points are available for designing and running the experiment and analysing the data. Researchers who score at least 100 points make the author list, with each person's point total determining their rank.

Disagreements still occur; in those cases, Kosslyn decides how the points are allocated. When the balance of contributions is unclear, he does his best. However, it rarely comes to tallying points. “Usually it's very obvious what the order's going to be,” he says.

In recent years, no disputes have ever risen to the level of the argument that led to the point system. “That,” says Kosslyn, “was the last heated dispute we had in the lab.”

Box 1: Aggravation-free authorship

When many scientists work together, determining authorship isn't always easy. Here are some tips for settling the line-up.

Make sure that you choose collaborators with whom you can work well.

Discuss authorship early, and keep doing so often as a project evolves. Put it in writing.

When there are disputes, first try to talk it out amicably and understand the other person's point of view. For example, try to work out how the idea first came about.

If you must approach your supervisor about an authorship decision that you don't like, keep the tone inquisitive, not accusatory. Explain that you want to understand how authorship was decided.

If a contributor's authorship is in question, it can help to consider what the paper would have looked like without their efforts, and whether someone else could have made the same contribution.

Familiarize yourself with your institution's or journal's authorship guidelines, or those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Use them to back up your case.

Be prepared to compromise or share credit.

If you can't agree among yourselves, engage a supervisor, trusted colleagues or an ombudsman to investigate the matter and make a recommendation. A.D.

Box 2: Ghosts and guests

Authorship can be misused when there is money to be made. Medical journals contain a mixture of original scientific findings and veiled advertisements for drugs, and scientists and physicians must read papers critically to understand a medicine's true merits, says Alastair Matheson, a biomedical-research consultant in Toronto, Canada.

Some pharmaceutical companies make drugs and run clinical trials, then engage medical writers to draft manuscripts. These contributors are often ghostwriters not listed as authors on the paper. Instead, the company's marketing team finds a big academic name to headline the project — even if this guest author makes no contribution to the paper apart from scanning the final version. Companies sometimes use the same technique to produce reviews promoting their latest medicines, says Joseph Ross, a physician who studies health policy at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. One survey 5 found that guests and ghosts haunted 21% of papers published in six leading medical journals in 2008.

“This vast production line of information about drugs is passed off as the work of academics rather than the work of industry,” says Matheson. The companies get to advertise their products; the ghostwriters receive a pay cheque; and the academics get another line on their CVs. But the patients and the integrity of science all lose out, says Matheson.

For example, Merck, a pharmaceutical company based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, minimized reporting of the risks observed for its painkiller Vioxx (rofecoxib) until the drug was taken off the market in 2004. Ross was a consultant to people who had taken Vioxx and developed heart problems, or their families, in two court cases against Merck, and he saw some of the company's internal documents 6 . “We were sort of shocked to find pretty rampant evidence that a lot of the trials were ghostwritten,” says Ross. “We would stumble across a full draft of a manuscript that just said, 'external author?'.”

There are ways to identify traces of guests and ghosts in a manuscript: “Check the small print,” says Matheson. That is where a medical writer or communications company may be acknowledged. Funding from a drug-maker is another tell-tale sign. “These are pointers to the likelihood that this is something originated and planned by industry prior to the involvement of the headline authors,” says Matheson. Author disclosures are less helpful, he adds, because academic authors may list several affiliations and it is difficult to tell which commercial relationship is relevant.

With commerce and medicine intimately intertwined, it would be impractical for academics to cut ties with companies, says Matheson. But, he adds, when academics are offered guest authorship, “I would advise them, for the sake of their reputation, to do two things”. First, he says, be more than a guest: make sure that your contribution is author-level. Second, insist that company employees involved in the study are also listed as authors.

Matheson says it is the responsibility of journals to make participation by drug-makers more apparent. He would like to see papers marked right at the top with 'commercial article'. He also suggests that journals use labels to indicate who funded the study, and what drug it supports. A.D.

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435 , 737–738 (2005).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

The ATLAS Collaboration J. Instrum. 3 , S08003 (2008).

Maris, E. & Check, E. Nature 439 , 768–769 (2006).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

The ENCODE Project Consortium Nature 489 , 57–74 (2012).

Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B. & DeAngelis, C. D. Br. Med. J. 343 , D6128 (2011).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S. & Krumholz, H. M. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 299 , 1800–1812 (2008).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Amber Dance is a freelance science writer in Los Angeles, California.,

Amber Dance

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

See World View p.475

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Authorship policies

Credit where credit's due

Merck accused of disguising its role in research

Taking the industry road

Nature authorship policy

Related external links

ICJME authorship guidelines

Stephen Kosslyn's authorship criteria

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dance, A. Authorship: Who's on first?. Nature 489 , 591–593 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a

Download citation

Published : 26 September 2012

Issue Date : 27 September 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a

Share this article

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

This article is cited by

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.

• Reint Meursinge Reynders
• Gerben ter Riet
• Mario Malički

Systematic Reviews (2022)

Gender disparities in pediatric research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships

• Katja Böhme
• Doris Klingelhöfer
• Michael H. K. Bendels

Pediatric Research (2022)

Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?

Scientometrics (2019)

Text Recycling in Scientific Writing

• Cary Moskovitz

Science and Engineering Ethics (2019)

The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains

• David Johann
• Sabrina Jasmin Mayer

Minerva (2019)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Plast Surg
• v.43(2); Jul-Dec 2010

Authorship issue explained

Surajit bhattacharya.

Editor, IJPS E-mail: ni.oc.oohay@hbtijarus

When it comes to the fact that who should be an author and who should not be offered ghost authorship, it seem we are all in agreement.[ 1 ] Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on (c) final revision of the version to be published. Conditions (a), (b), and (c) must all are met.

However, when it comes to the sequence of authorship there seems to be a grey zone and exploitation at both ends of the spectrum. We have come across aggrieved Unit Chiefs and displeased residents in almost equal numbers. It is important for young authors to understand that there are two positions that count, the first author and the last author. Attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when one is young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As one’s career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from one’s Unit, he/she is the main person responsible for its contents, and a younger colleague has made major contributions to the paper, hence he/she is designated as the first author. The guidelines here are not as well defined as for authorship in general, Riesenberg and Lundberg[ 2 ] have made certain very important and simple suggestions to decide the sequence of authorship:

• 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. The senior author, like all other authors, should meet all criteria for authorship.
• The senior author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the research student has not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The senior author then becomes the corresponding author, but should the student be the first author? Some supervisors put their students first, others put their own names first. Perhaps it should be decided on the absolute amount of time spent on the project by the student (in getting the data) and the supervisor (in providing help and in writing the paper). Or perhaps the supervisor should be satisfied with being corresponding author, regardless of time committed to the project.
• A sensible policy adopted by many supervisors is to give the student a fixed period of time (say 12 months) to write the first draft of the paper. If the student does not deliver, the supervisor may then write the paper and put her or his own name first.

The second issue raised in this letter is about the use of plurals. Our insistence of avoiding pronouns I, me and mine in all publications is very sound and logical. Even if it is a single author paper, surgery is a team game and we are virtually powerless without our unsung colleagues - residents, nurses, technicians etc. By using plurals we recognize their vital role in our success story. Where as in a multiple author paper, the author has no option but to call it ‘our work’ instead on ‘my paper’, even when he is writing the paper all by himself / herself, there were many hands helping him / her and it is our Journal policy to acknowledge the same.

What roles Co-author and Corresponding Author play in Research Papers

Introduction

In current academic research, nothing exists in isolation. Good research requires collaboration, thus giving rise to the guild of co-authors and corresponding authors. These terms often raise questions about their significance and differences. Let’s delve into the distinctions between co-authors and corresponding authors, their roles, and how to appropriately mention the corresponding author in a paper.

Co-author vs. Corresponding Author: Unveiling the Differences

Co-author Meaning

• A co-author is a researcher who has contributed significantly to a research paper, sharing responsibility for its content and findings.
• Co-authors collaborate to design experiments, analyze results, and contribute to the overall intellectual content of the paper.

Corresponding Author Meaning

• The corresponding author is the designated point of contact for the paper. They facilitate communication with the journal, handle revisions, and address queries.
• The corresponding author isn’t necessarily the primary contributor but takes on administrative responsibilities.

How to Mention the Corresponding Author in a Paper

• Typically, the corresponding author’s name and contact information are provided at the top of the first page of the paper.
• Including an asterisk (*) next to the corresponding author’s name and explaining their role in a footnote is common practice.
• Mention the corresponding author’s email address for efficient communication.

Co-author vs. Second Author: Clarifying the Distinction

• Co-author: Holds equal responsibility for the content contributed substantially.
• Second Author: Holds a significant role but might not have been as involved as co-authors.

Who Should Be the Corresponding Author?

• Usually, the corresponding author is a senior researcher who can effectively handle communication.
• The corresponding author need not be the primary author; any co-author familiar with the research can take on this role.

Differences Between Co-author and Corresponding Author

• Responsibility : Co-authors share content responsibility; the corresponding author manages communication.
• Involvement : Co-authors are deeply involved in research; the corresponding author handles administrative aspects.
• Listing : All co-authors are listed in the byline; only the corresponding author’s contact details are visible.
• Primary Contribution : Co-authors contribute intellectually; the corresponding author manages logistics.

Main Author vs. Corresponding Author: Unraveling the Contrast

• Main Author : Often referred to as the first author, contributes significantly to research and writing.
• Corresponding Author : Handles communication, edits, and revisions after accepting the paper.

Collaborative Writing: Can Two Authors Pen a Book Together?

• Multiple authors can co-write a book, combining their expertise and perspectives.

The Merits of Being a Co-author

• Learning Opportunity : Co-authoring exposes you to diverse ideas and research methods.
• Networking : Collaboration connects you with other researchers in your field.
• Shared Workload : Co-authors distribute the research and writing burden.

Conclusion: Navigating the Authorship Landscape

Understanding the roles of co-authors and corresponding authors is vital in the intricate realm of academic authorship. Collaborative efforts enrich research and foster academic growth. As you embark on research journeys, remember the unique contributions of co-authors and the crucial responsibilities shouldered by corresponding authors. So, cheer up if you are a co-author or corresponding author; your contributions to this evolving knowledge domain are unparalleled.

Explore, Collaborate, and Illuminate. Connect with us at Manuscriptedit.com .

[credit-swatim]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for discussing academic life, and for asking questions directed towards people involved in academia, (both science and humanities).

Does being the second author in a Science or Nature or any top-tier journal paper valuable?

Can the second author write those papers on their CV? Is it valuable?

(I'm a grad student in Physics)

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

2nd authorship, any good at all?

Hi Folks I'm coming to the end of my PhD (submission 1-2 weeks away). It looks like the best I will achieve by way of publication is 4 papers all as second author. One was a tiny bit of work I did because I'm good at a particular technique, 2 are papers of significant input (ideas and practical) but are fundamentally someone else's work. The final one is 50:50, or possibly 60:40 in my favour in terms of practical input, but my boss wants my former colleague to write it because he is in a better position than me to do so. I'm slightly peeved by this, but I'll survive and do have thesis to do/viva to mug up for. The main question of this thread is does 2nd authorship actually count for very much? Obviously first author is great, but I don't really know after that. Any inputs are most welcome, although my field is biosciences, so I would be especially keen to hear from anyone in that field Cakeman

Okay my two cents worth: 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. About your PhD work - is there maybe some particular angle (data analysis wise) that has not been considered yet, which you could do after the PhD and then publish as first author? I understand why you are peeved at your boss for not giving you the chance to write it up as first author (I'd be annyoyed like hell), but it seems the whole rule on authorship can vary from sup to sup/discipline to discipline.. (I am not in biosciences, so dont know..) (sprout)

I think second-author papers done during the PhD are absolutely fine. I think the perception in my field (social science discipline) is that a paper written by 2 people is more of an equal joint effort (rather than one person's paper with another guy tagged on). 3 authors or more starts to look less stellar. Also for REF purposes you can enter a paper where you are not the first author, so to potential employers you have got 4 papers that are REF-eligible.

======= Date Modified 10 Feb 2010 19:44:47 ======= Since I am about to ask a very stupid question I won't add any imput to the original question...Though I agree with what has been said already. Basically my query is who is the first author: is it the corresponding author, or just the first person listed? It makes sense to me that it is the corresponding author, but this isn't always the first author listed so I just wondered.

Hi Cakeman I agree with Heifer, and I'm also in social sciences. Second author in this discipline is good, and it does look like a joint effort. It shows you can be published, and also work collaboratively. Gennia, 1st author is the person who's name goes first, and who is usually the contact, but not always.

Hey! In my field at least (clinical psychology), first author is the first person listed, and the person who gets the most credit. The corresponding author isn't really that relevant in terms of having credit for the work I don't think. On my PhD work, I am the first author and my supervisor second, but she is the corresponding author. There was a particular reason for her being the corresponding author but I can't remember what it was now...I think it was something to do with her having a permanent position at the uni and me more likely to move on before her, so her address would be valid for longer. But I agree with the other post- if there are only two authors anyway then it is often perceived as more of a joint effort than if there are a whole list of authors. Personally, I think 4 papers is pretty good, even as second author. Of course first author is preferable, but many people come out of a PhD with no publications at all, so you are way ahead of a lot of people already. Your publications show that your work is of publishable quality, although it would be good to get a first author in if you can, as that also shows that your own writing is of publishable quality too! I think you should be pretty pleased with yourself! Best of luck with the submission! KB

Thank you Sue and Keenbean. Still confused though, my supervisor has submitted a paper which he admits he wrote pretty much alone but he felt it would look weird to be the only author and so added his PhD student as a sceond author as he used some of her DNA samples. Anyway she is listed as the first author and my supervisor the second and corresponding. I'm guessing either she contributed more than my supervisor is letting on or he did it as a favour to her or this paper lists the names alphabetically and therefore the general first author is not valid.

Quote From Gennia: Thank you Sue and Keenbean. Still confused though, my supervisor has submitted a paper which he admits he wrote pretty much alone but he felt it would look weird to be the only author and so added his PhD student as a sceond author as he used some of her DNA samples. Anyway she is listed as the first author and my supervisor the second and corresponding. I'm guessing either she contributed more than my supervisor is letting on or he did it as a favour to her or this paper lists the names alphabetically and therefore the general first author is not valid. You're in a different field to me, so it could be different - but this sounds highly unusual to me. I'd say he was doing her a favour. I was talking to a senior academic from the UK, and he said that it's not unusual for tenured academics to put their students as first author, as the student needs the kudos more, and tenured academics don't. Which sounded very generous! I mentioned this to my sup, and funnily enough, she wasn't taken with the idea...

Hehe shame. Yeah I'm in biosciences so that might be why it's different but maybe not. Since it seems to be against what is normally the case I'll go with him doing her a favour as that's nice. Thanks again.

Hmm...I have heard of all sorts of dodgy stuff going on with authorships- friends putting each other down as authors on papers to increase number of authorships per person, people contributing little or no academic content to the work but being added as an author because they corrected a spelling mistake or something ridiculous like that. I do think there are major politics behind a lot of authorship issues and a lot of friction between colleagues regarding who should be first author etc. With my supervisor all us PhD-ers are first author on our PhD work, and our primary supervisor goes second, and sometimes our second supervisor goes on as third author, depending on his input (generally not much). On my first publication I asked my primary supervisor if my second supervisor should go down as third author and she was clearly pissed off just at the thought of it- they get so touchy and competitive these academics! But a pal of mine had a supervisor who insisted on being first author on my pal's work, even though it was my pal's PhD and he had written the paper- I guess people vary, but I think I'd be hacked off in that sort of situation! Best, KB

Keenbean, it's funny how much variation there is even within a field. I am also in psychology, and authorship on most papers I've read puts the PhD/postdoc who the project primarily belongs to first, the supervisor or lab head last, then everyone else in the middle in order of greatest contribution.

Hmm, varies I think. I am in the social scinece, in the second year of my PhD. PhD related publication before a PhD is done is very unlikley in my dept and field but there are those who work on projects and get to be 2nd authors on research project papers. I have one 9000 word piece in press right now, me as sole author. Based on my PhD. ANother, me as sole author, 8000 words, based on my PhD is under review. A third, joint with sup as first, written as a cross-generational reflexvie theoretical peice is in prep going tobe submitted to a very fancy journal (but this is supposed to be a dialogie between two generations, and we talk o me as the younger gen in the paper so in this paper I think its absolutely shared aiuthorship and Iinsisted she goes first on this) For project wiritng,m she is alwys first although she'd offered once, but its her grant, her project and all, and we share the writing. My phD, well I am writing my empirical chapters for particular journals from the outset so that I have all 3 empirical chapters under review at least by the time of viva. And they are all single. But this is a little unusual (the continental model of a Phd rather than the UK model) but I'm having a go, so let's see

======= Date Modified 10 Feb 2010 21:52:34 ======= Hey Bug, that's the kind of thing I'm aiming for. I think different approaches suit different people- there are people under my supervisor who aren't planning to publish their work at all, but for me she has suggested that I take the publication approach as I really enjoy writing papers and apparently I write really well (according to my sup, although she makes two zillion changes every time!), so it makes sense to publish as I go along. I am aiming to have 2 theoretical papers, 3-4 results papers, and a discussion article submitted by the end of my PhD, but this seems to be quite a rare approach in my department too...I guess I already know I want to stay in research too, so I need publications and my sup is very keen on getting my stuff out there. At the moment I have two articles published and another ready to be submitted and I am 16 months into my PhD...I don't know if I'll hit my target number of publications, but at least it's something to aim for! It's strange your sup isn't insisting on being on your papers...has she had any input at all? I have written mine but my sup has looked at numerous drafts and made comments, and she goes on as second author which seems fair enough to me. I don't mind anyway, it's quite cool to see my name in print next to hers, I'm quite proud to be associated with her! KB

======= Date Modified 11 Feb 2010 07:42:15 ======= Hi KB - my sup is more involved in my writing than myself - actually my PhD is an empirical and theoretical response to a conceptual challenge she placed to our field in a research article 5 years ago. So in that sense she is *in* my thesis, for it's essentially a response to Prof X, 2006. All our conversations on this are coming together in our cross generational paper which is very very theoretical. For the writing of my PhD she clarified at the outset that she wouldnt like to 'tread' on my PhD and I can see she wants single authore stuff as well from me, for all our project related writing (reports but eventual artiles, and now thinking of a book too!!) are all joint with her. ANd oh she reads my drafts til version 23 was it the last time (!) and contributes to a ceaseless intellectual conversation at and after supervision. SHe even reads my abstracts that I submit for conerences and makes me rewrite even those!!!

Post your reply

Postgraduate Forum

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

Postgraduate Forum Copyright ©2024 All rights reserved

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

Welcome to the world's leading Postgraduate Forum

An active and supportive community.

Support and advice from your peers.

Your postgraduate questions answered.

Use your experience to help others.

Sign Up to Postgraduate Forum

Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account

Login to your account

Enter your username below to login to your account

Reset password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password

An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.

or continue as guest

Postgrad Forum uses cookies to create a better experience for you

To ensure all features on our website work properly, your computer, tablet or mobile needs to accept cookies. Our cookies don’t store your personal information, but provide us with anonymous information about use of the website and help us recognise you so we can offer you services more relevant to you. For more information please read our privacy policy

• Communities Pre-Med Medical Resident Audiology Dental Optometry Pharmacy Physical Therapy Podiatry Psychology Rehab Sci Veterinary
• What's new Trending New posts Latest activity
• Support Account Help Confidential Advising
• Vision, Values and Policies
• Research Communities
• Student Research and Publishing

First Author vs. Second Author etc.

• Thread starter premd
• Start date Mar 31, 2006

• Mar 31, 2006

Yes, the first author is listed first, and so on. Usually the first author is the author that did the majority of the work (in terms of data contributions - they are also usually the person who wrote the paper, at least where I work), the second author contributed the second most, etc. If two people contributed an equal amount, obviously one will have to be listed ahead of the other, but whoever submits the article can choose to indicate that those two people contributed an equal amount (using an asterisk and a footnote or something).  

Senior Member

• Apr 1, 2006

First author = did most of the work, usually the one who wrote the paper Last author = usually the PI whose grant paid for the work Everyone in-between = other people who worked on the paper, often in descending order of contribution Sometimes the first couple of authors will have a star by their names with a footnote that says "these authors contributed equally to this work." In those cases, it's advantageous to have a last name that starts with a low letter of the alphabet, because most people don't notice the footnote, and it doesn't show up in the bibliographic listing of the article.  

Creightonite

• Apr 3, 2006

Pretty much the first author is one who did most of work and might';ve contributed to writing the paper. The most important person though is a corresponding author nevertheless. Having your name in in between first and last author does not really do you any good or bad, except of course if you got your name in Science or Nature... impact factor of 36...  

Long way from Gate 27

What do you guys think "the rules" are when there are just two authors? Curious, 'cause I'm trying to get into that situation.  

The very broad general rule is 1st author did much of the work operationally, the oversight of the project, and even the writing of the paper. This is usually the person that takes a project from start to finish. Someone senior usually tells them "It would be great to do a project on blah blah blah. Why don't you go and tackle it" to which they actually get it done. They certainly may get some help in the form of research assistants/associates, etc, but they "own" the project and take a lead on it. First authorship is considered a significant achievement, generally. The last author, also called the senior author, is PI or head of the research group (formal or informal Primary Investigator, head of the lab, Chief of a medical unit, or Director of a certain program, etc). This is the "someone senior" typically from above who has mentored or supervised the project. Their credibility and reputation as a senior author is also factored into each paper they write as last (senior) author. People in the middle are generally listed in order of contribution from most to least - but this convention is often broken. Also, in clinical medicine, there are definitely a lot of people who only glance at the people in-between (eg. the difference between 2nd and 9th in a 10 author paper is negligible). This rule is broken - in my mind - for more junior scientists (undergrads, pre-meds, research assistants looking to get into med school) because quite frankly getting to contribute to any study in any capacity is a differentiator to those that have no publications of any kind. If there are two equal collaborators, it's ultimately a flip of a coin. If you are a researcher in someone's lab and only two of you are on a paper, it's almost always: researcher, head of lab. If person A did proportionally more intellectual work than person b, then generally person A goes first, person b second. This is all convention. Generally, your mentor/preceptor should be able to help guide you as far as author order and giving credit where credit is due.  

relentless11

Going broke and loving it.

• Apr 7, 2006

On our end, they taught us: 1st Author: Person who did most of the work, like write the manuscript, and do most if not all of the experiment. 2nd Author: Person who helped out the most, and/or person who mentored the 1st author (e.g.: if 1st author was grad student) the most. Then you got every one after that who contributed, e.g: contributing authors. Last author as some has stated is the guy that got the whole thing started. Usually the PI, who got the grants, and so forth.  

doctorsquared

First Author: Person sleeping with PI or spouse of PI who did less than one quarter of the work. Second Author: Person that actually did a vast majority of work who now can't get a job due to a lack of first author papers. Third Author: Person that started the project and gave up. Last Arthor: Principle Investigator. (See first author.)  

Purrrrrr!?!11??

• May 2, 2012

I am listed in the set of authors with a star by our names saying we all contributed equally. This was an undergrad lab; PI is listed last, and there are 4 equally contributing authors listed first, then two or three other undergrads who contributed minimally to the project listed last (without a star by their names) the first four are described as such "†These authors contributed equally to this work, and are listed alphabetically." Does this mean that I am a first author? My name is third because my last name is in the middle of the alphabet. How do I cite this on a resume? Should I add the stars and the note? How do I cite this on AMCAS app? Thanks for any input! Best, C  

Pastafarian

• May 9, 2012

catzzz88 said: I am listed in the set of authors with a star by our names saying we all contributed equally. This was an undergrad lab; PI is listed last, and there are 4 equally contributing authors listed first, then two or three other undergrads who contributed minimally to the project listed last (without a star by their names) the first four are described as such "†These authors contributed equally to this work, and are listed alphabetically." Does this mean that I am a first author? My name is third because my last name is in the middle of the alphabet. How do I cite this on a resume? Should I add the stars and the note? How do I cite this on AMCAS app? Thanks for any input! Best, C Click to expand...

Full Member

• May 15, 2012

catzzz88 said: I am listed in the set of authors with a star by our names saying we all contributed equally. This was an undergrad lab; PI is listed last, and there are 4 equally contributing authors listed first, then two or three other undergrads who contributed minimally to the project listed last (without a star by their names) the first four are described as such "†These authors contributed equally to this work, and are listed alphabetically." Does this mean that I am a first author? My name is third because my last name is in the middle of the alphabet. How do I cite this on a resume? Should I add the stars and the note? How do I cite this on AMCAS app? Thanks for any input! Best, C Click to expand...

HDaddyDollarz

Class of 2017.

• May 17, 2012

I am on an article where I am co-first author.....we are putting the asterik by our names, but right now as our draft stands, my last name is listed first, but my last name starts with an M and the other first author (who is listed right after me currently) starts with a D......so when we submit it, is the journal going to switch the order since my last name is later?  

HDaddyDollarz said: I am on an article where I am co-first author.....we are putting the asterik by our names, but right now as our draft stands, my last name is listed first, but my last name starts with an M and the other first author (who is listed right after me currently) starts with a D......so when we submit it, is the journal going to switch the order since my last name is later? Click to expand...

Similar threads

• Biochemist3412
• Jan 20, 2024

• Jun 27, 2023
• fatefeather
• Dec 6, 2018
• Feb 25, 2020
• Mar 2, 2018

• This site uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies and terms of service . Accept Learn more…

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Which is more valued, first authorship articles or the number of articles produced?

What is more important in academia (bioinformatics, computational biology) for a person when he/she has already completed their PhD:

• Number of first authorship articles he/she has
• Number of published articles (he/she may or may not be the first author)

I wanted to know what do post-doc positions value more, the quality (only first author journals/conferences) or quantity(more number of journals/conferences, with/without first authorship)

• publications
• graduate-school
• bioinformatics

• 12 This could depend on the field. What field are you asking about? –  David Z Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 11:44
• 5 First authorship is not the same as quality. –  JeffE Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 13:01
• 1 Perhaps, when you are not first author, being one of two authors counts more than begin one of fifty authors. –  GEdgar Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 13:24
• 6 Massively field-dependent. Physics authors are ordered alphabetically. –  chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic- Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 16:51
• 2 GEdgar: Depends - sometimes the second author of a fifty author paper is one of the key implementers, and the second author of a two author paper is a supervisor who didn't have time to read the paper :) Also, sometimes the fifty author paper has fifty authors because it's a major study, in which case being the second author out of fifty counts for something. Basically, you need to know what the person actually did on the paper - you can't tell much just from the author list. –  Stuart Golodetz Commented Aug 10, 2018 at 9:37

6 Answers 6

As an experienced researcher, I think that this choice is a false dichotomy.

What I look for in a researcher's record is their ability to do meaningful and impactful work, and the strongest researchers in most fields I know of typically have a record that shows a mixture of first-author and Nth-author papers:

• If you're capable of innovating and of doing the core work of a project, that should produce some first-author papers.
• If your work is impactful and useful to others, that will result in collaborations, many of which will not have you as first author.

Complementarily, I would consider it a red flag to see either very few first-author papers (often indicating poor core research capabilities) or nearly all first-author papers (often indicating poor ability to work with others).

The further along a researcher is in their career, the more that I would typically expect the balance to shift from first-author papers to non-first-author papers, both as there is more time to build collaborations and as they start to supervise more junior researchers (student or otherwise).

To answer your specific question about a postdoctoral application, then, I would typically expect to see at least a few strong first-author papers and also some non-first-author collaborations. At that stage of career, however, the number of significant papers is typically small enough that strong candidates can have all sorts of different mixtures. In the end, at least for a researcher like myself, my judgement regarding a postdoc is less about the number of publications than what's in the publications and what you did for them.

Note: the general expectations expressed here may not apply to certain fields with very different publication expectations, such as pure mathematical theory or experimental high-energy particle physics

• 19 +1 Even in math and related fields, where “first authors” don’t exist, the underlying desiderata are the same: my judgement regarding a postdoc is less about the number of publications than what's in the publications and what you did for them –  JeffE Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 13:00
• 1 "start to supervise more junior researchers" I would add that if a supervisor is frequently making themselves first author, I would be carefully scrutinizing their supervision to see if the junior researchers are being treated fairly. I expect to see the supervisor as last author for work within my field. –  Anonymous Physicist Commented Aug 11, 2018 at 9:25
• 2 @AnonymousPhysicist Absolutely, if there are student co-authors involved. I also know a good number of professors who never went "full manager" and continue to do work themselves that is not dependent on student or postdoc inputs. –  jakebeal Commented Aug 11, 2018 at 10:09
• What if the candidate moved overseas or coming from a region (for whatever reason) where there is nobody in his field? Then it'll be hard for him to get collaborators. Of course people can do online collaboration, or get collaborations from conferences etc,, but it's not the same chance as people coming from good research environment. –  kate Commented May 23, 2019 at 6:04
• 2 @kate Where have you encountered this policy? In every university that I have dealt with, the postdoc's performance (and ability to continue, assuming funding) is evaluated pretty much entirely by the professor. –  jakebeal Commented May 23, 2019 at 15:34

There is no answer that is uniform across academia.

In many fields, such as pure mathematics and much of computer science, paper authors are listed alphabetically and being first author is an accident of birth rather than anything else. Jacob Aagard would be first author on almost any pure maths paper he wrote; Admiral Elmo Zumwalt would be last. 1

As I understand it, there are fields where most papers are single-author so, again, the question becomes meaningless.

1 I was once at a workshop in honour of Moshe Vardi . Jeff Ullman 's talk included a slide about why he likes working with Vardi: 1. He's a nice guy; 2. He's super-smart; 3. His name comes after mine in the alphabet. Vardi stands up and says something along the lines of, "That's very kind. I work with Pierre Wolper for the same reasons."

• 7 +1 while this story is interesting, it can only demonstrate that great scientists have sense of humor. –  sean Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 16:38
• 1 Zumwalt should have collaborated with Bill Zwicker. –  Andreas Blass Commented Aug 11, 2018 at 4:03

First, you are talking about at least three dimensions:

• Contribution : In most but not all disciplines, first authorship often denotes greater contribution. Other indicators include being one of a smaller list of authors (e.g., being second author on a two author-paper compared to a ten author paper).
• Quality : The quality of your papers; this can refer to the actual quality of the paper as judged by experts who read it; equally, some will judge quality based on the reputation of the journal or other indicators such as citations to the article.
• Quantity : Number of papers.

You could also contrast total career output versus recent average annual output . Total career output speaks somewhat to your overall reputation, whereas average annual output speaks to how productive you are both in general, and in recent years. This distinction is more important when people are comparing output of researchers with varying career lengths. In the case of comparing graduating PhD students for post doc positions, this distinction is often less relevant.

More generally, there is substantial variation in how contribution, quality, and quantity are weighted to evaluate you as a researcher.

In general, people evaluating you want to see lots (high quantity) of high (or at least good) quality papers with a decent number of first authorships, and see that this productivity has been sustained in recent years.

Of course, the amount of your time required to generate a given output is broadly related to the value assigned to it by people evaluating your research. On average, higher quality papers where you are the lead author take more time to write than lower quality papers where you are playing a support role.

Given the huge variation across disciplines, countries, universities, academics, it's difficult to give general advice. But here are some general comments.

• Try to get a few good first-author papers. But also get involved with other people's papers. This shows that you can collaborate. And in the cases where "number of papers" matters, playing a support role can speed up the process.
• Ask around to get a sense of the relative importance of journal rankings / impact factors / journal reputation in your area.

Since you asked about bioinformatics and computational biology, which is my field, let me add my two cents...

When I am hiring a postdoc, what I want is going to depend on the project, but it will be some combination of:

• Ability to guide your own research
• Technical competence
• Ability of work with others.

A high quality first author paper generally demonstrates the first two of these. If it is obviously multidisciplinary paper, it might well demonstrate the third as well.

In the UK (where PhDs have limited time) and particularly in bioinformatics (where collaborative politics often lead to the computation element of projects being under valued), it is not unusual for perfectly good scientists to finish their PhD without a first author paper.

In an interview I would generally ask a candidate what their precise role was in the publications they are middle author on to see what skills these publications demonstrated.

In a collaborative role it may be better to have many (good) mid-author papers than one first author, although you'd need to explain to me how your role was key for the papers in question and your didn't just do a quick DESeq for supplementary figure 10.

I'm sure the answer will depend strongly on your academic field. I will try to make it as general as possible:

As a postdoc, your role might be switching from working as team member to leading a smaller team. Therefore you'll have to demonstrate that you can hold a team together and work on a broader range of topics. This can be demonstrated by senior authorships. The more significant senior authorships, the more active is your team (please don't aim at numbers for the sake of numbers - high quality is more appreciated!) and you are demonstrating, that you can quide others to do high quality research.

Still, there is a need to show that you are doing your own research and are not just on the administrative side. This is shown by first authorships. Depending on your group size, it might be difficult to find the time to write those.

Other positions in the list of authors are less valuable and they are more or less showing how large your network is. If you have to decide between three second-author papers and one first-author, I would choose the first author paper.

In my field, atmospheric sciences, the first author/corresponding author is the most important. As an example, a scientist working in a federal research institute with more than 200 publications was only given an assistant professor position when he moved to a top university.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications phd graduate-school postdocs bioinformatics ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Why is the tortoise associated with 人情?
• What story starts off with the character waking up in a battlefield with wolves and vultures and snow?
• 70s-80s animation with an island of robots
• Overstayed Schengen but can I switch to US passport?
• Why is there no article after 'by'?
• Can IRS make the taxpayer pay the costs of litigation if the latter loses the case?
• Felt VR40 - 2020
• Encode a VarInt
• Is there a phrase for someone who's really bad at cooking?
• Can unlimited Duration spells be Dismissed?
• Which Mosaic law was in the backdrop of ceremonial hand-washing in Mark 7?
• Is this screw inside a 2-prong receptacle a possible ground?
• Cannot open and HTML file stored on RAM-disk with a browser
• Which version of Netscape, on which OS, appears in the movie “Cut” (2000)?
• What is a "hard-boiled turtle-slapper"?
• Journal keeps messing with my proof
• Duties when bringing Canadian goods to US in luggage
• Why are complex coordinates outlawed in physics?
• Whatever happened to Chessmaster?
• Has a tire ever exploded inside the Wheel Well?
• My supervisor wants me to switch to another software/programming language that I am not proficient in. What to do?
• Is there a way to define a function over the complex numbers, that satisfies a log property?
• Coding exercise to represent an integer as words using python
• Compact symmetric spaces and sub-root systems

• Publications
• News and Events
• Education and Outreach

Software Engineering Institute

Sei digital library, latest publications, embracing ai: unlocking scalability and transformation through generative text, imagery, and synthetic audio, august 28, 2024 • webcast, by tyler brooks , shannon gallagher , dominic a. ross.

In this webcast, Tyler Brooks, Shannon Gallagher, and Dominic Ross aim to demystify AI and illustrate its transformative power in achieving scalability, adapting to changing landscapes, and driving digital innovation.

Counter AI: What Is It and What Can You Do About It?

August 27, 2024 • white paper, by nathan m. vanhoudnos , carol j. smith , matt churilla , shing-hon lau , lauren mcilvenny , greg touhill.

This paper describes counter artificial intelligence (AI) and provides recommendations on what can be done about it.

Using Quality Attribute Scenarios for ML Model Test Case Generation

August 27, 2024 • conference paper, by rachel brower-sinning , grace lewis , sebastián echeverría , ipek ozkaya.

This paper presents an approach based on quality attribute (QA) scenarios to elicit and define system- and model-relevant test cases for ML models.

3 API Security Risks (and How to Protect Against Them)

August 27, 2024 • podcast, by mckinley sconiers-hasan.

McKinley Sconiers-Hasan discusses three API risks and how to address them through the lens of zero trust.

Lessons Learned in Coordinated Disclosure for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Systems

August 20, 2024 • white paper, by allen d. householder , vijay s. sarvepalli , jeff havrilla , matt churilla , lena pons , shing-hon lau , nathan m. vanhoudnos , andrew kompanek , lauren mcilvenny.

In this paper, the authors describe lessons learned from coordinating AI and ML vulnerabilities at the SEI's CERT/CC.

On the Design, Development, and Testing of Modern APIs

July 30, 2024 • white paper, by alejandro gomez , alex vesey.

This white paper discusses the design, desired qualities, development, testing, support, and security of modern application programming interfaces (APIs).

Evaluating Large Language Models for Cybersecurity Tasks: Challenges and Best Practices

July 26, 2024 • podcast, by jeff gennari , samuel j. perl.

Jeff Gennari and Sam Perl discuss applications for LLMs in cybersecurity, potential challenges, and recommendations for evaluating LLMs.

Capability-based Planning for Early-Stage Software Development

July 24, 2024 • podcast, by anandi hira , bill nichols.

This SEI podcast introduces capability-based planning (CBP) and its use and application in software acquisition.

A Model Problem for Assurance Research: An Autonomous Humanitarian Mission Scenario

July 23, 2024 • technical note, by gabriel moreno , anton hristozov , john e. robert , mark h. klein.

This report describes a model problem to support research in large-scale assurance.

Safeguarding Against Recent Vulnerabilities Related to Rust

June 28, 2024 • podcast, by david svoboda.

David Svoboda discusses two vulnerabilities related to Rust, their sources, and how to mitigate them.

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/08/20/gcse-results-day-2024-number-grading-system/

GCSE results day 2024: Everything you need to know including the number grading system

Thousands of students across the country will soon be finding out their GCSE results and thinking about the next steps in their education.   

Here we explain everything you need to know about the big day, from when results day is, to the current 9-1 grading scale, to what your options are if your results aren’t what you’re expecting.  

When is GCSE results day 2024?  

GCSE results day will be taking place on Thursday the 22 August.     

The results will be made available to schools on Wednesday and available to pick up from your school by 8am on Thursday morning.  

Schools will issue their own instructions on how and when to collect your results.   

When did we change to a number grading scale?  

The shift to the numerical grading system was introduced in England in 2017 firstly in English language, English literature, and maths.  

By 2020 all subjects were shifted to number grades. This means anyone with GCSE results from 2017-2020 will have a combination of both letters and numbers.  

The numerical grading system was to signal more challenging GCSEs and to better differentiate between students’ abilities - particularly at higher grades between the A *-C grades. There only used to be 4 grades between A* and C, now with the numerical grading scale there are 6.  

What do the number grades mean?  

The grades are ranked from 1, the lowest, to 9, the highest.  

The grades don’t exactly translate, but the two grading scales meet at three points as illustrated below.  

The bottom of grade 7 is aligned with the bottom of grade A, while the bottom of grade 4 is aligned to the bottom of grade C.    

Meanwhile, the bottom of grade 1 is aligned to the bottom of grade G.  

What to do if your results weren’t what you were expecting?  

If your results weren’t what you were expecting, firstly don’t panic. You have options.  

First things first, speak to your school or college – they could be flexible on entry requirements if you’ve just missed your grades.   

They’ll also be able to give you the best tailored advice on whether re-sitting while studying for your next qualifications is a possibility.   

If you’re really unhappy with your results you can enter to resit all GCSE subjects in summer 2025. You can also take autumn exams in GCSE English language and maths.  

Speak to your sixth form or college to decide when it’s the best time for you to resit a GCSE exam.  

Look for other courses with different grade requirements     

Entry requirements vary depending on the college and course. Ask your school for advice, and call your college or another one in your area to see if there’s a space on a course you’re interested in.    

Consider an apprenticeship    

Apprenticeships combine a practical training job with study too. They’re open to you if you’re 16 or over, living in England, and not in full time education.  

As an apprentice you’ll be a paid employee, have the opportunity to work alongside experienced staff, gain job-specific skills, and get time set aside for training and study related to your role.   

You can find out more about how to apply here .  

Talk to a National Careers Service (NCS) adviser    

The National Career Service is a free resource that can help you with your career planning. Give them a call to discuss potential routes into higher education, further education, or the workplace.   

Whatever your results, if you want to find out more about all your education and training options, as well as get practical advice about your exam results, visit the  National Careers Service page  and Skills for Careers to explore your study and work choices.   

You may also be interested in:

• Results day 2024: What's next after picking up your A level, T level and VTQ results?
• When is results day 2024? GCSEs, A levels, T Levels and VTQs

Tags: GCSE grade equivalent , gcse number grades , GCSE results , gcse results day 2024 , gsce grades old and new , new gcse grades

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date.

Comments and moderation policy