Navigating authorship order on articles: What should you consider?

Last week I was talking to a researcher from Brazil who was upset because he was listed as second author on a published article. “In my university here, I will lose my funding if I am not first author. Second author and nothing are almost the same,” he lamented. According to him, a more senior researcher, who did less than him, made sure his name came first.

Apparently, his collaborators did not have “the talk” beforehand.

Indeed, the order in which one’s name appears on a paper can impact reputation, hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, author order merits careful consideration. However, practices vary widely between disciplines. As Smith and Williams-Jones (2012) note, “There are significant differences in the meaning and importance assigned to authorship order across disciplines” (p. 199). To help ensure fair author order, academics should proactively discuss expectations. As Helgesson (2020) argues, “In order to promote a fair and genuinely merit-based evaluation of researchers, it is important that the allocation of authorship positions is both fair and transparent” (p. 2). Here are some key points for academics to keep in mind:

1. Discipline matters. Author order practices vary widely between disciplines. In some fields like economics, alphabetical order is standard. In others like biomedicine, order reflects contribution. Before submitting, understand norms in your discipline.
2. Watch the middle. Perceptions of various author positions differ too. First and last author spots are consistently seen as indicating substantial contribution, but the significance of middle author spots is ambiguous. Make sure co-authors share expectations.
3. Shared accountability. Authorship criteria state authors should substantially contribute to the work and approve the final manuscript. All authors, regardless of position, are responsible for the integrity of the entire paper.
4. Keep track. Documenting contributions is essential. Keep notes on who did what and get consensus among co-authors. Tools like CRediT can help formalize roles.
5. Consider all roles. Authorship order should ideally reflect extent of contribution, but many factors can complicate determining positions. Don’t underestimate value of non-data tasks like writing or project management.
6. No bullying. Power dynamics can inappropriately influence authorship, such as senior faculty unfairly demanding prominent positions. Junior co-authors should not feel coerced.
7. Put it in writing. Develop authorship agreements early on and revisit periodically. I have a form that I have developed, which you can adapt to your needs. This can preempt conflict and disputes later on. Be prepared to have difficult conversations if necessary.
8. Ask a third party. Consider involving impartial colleagues or institutions in solving intractable conflicts over authorship order. An outside perspective can help find solutions.
9. Stay flexible. Authorship practices evolve, so reflect on your own potential biases in assessing contributions. Be open to re-examining conventions.
10. Be nice. There are no easy fixes to issues around authorship order. Cultivate open communication, transparency, and empathy among collaborators.

Determining fair author order is challenging, context-dependent, and evolving. But being proactive and establishing shared expectations among co-authors can help avoid many problems. Have frank but collegial discussions about authorship early and often when collaborating on scholarly projects. Here are some questions to consider:

• What are the norms for author order in our discipline/field?
• Does author order need to reflect different types of contributions (data collection, analysis, writing, project management, etc)?
• For multi-author papers, do we intend to use equal/alphabetical order, or order based on extent of contribution?
• Who will be responsible for documenting each author’s contributions throughout the project?
• When and how regularly will we revisit the expected author order as the project progresses?
• What process will we use if disputes around author order arise?
• Are there any other senior collaborators not doing hands-on work who expect to be authors? Why?
• For junior collaborators, what concerns do we have about unfairly obtaining undeserved prominent author positions?
• Does our institution/funder have any requirements regarding author order?

Getting perspectives from all collaborators early on about expectations and practices around author order can help prevent conflict down the road. As mentioned, I have a coauthorship planning form that can be adapted by you, but sometimes the best thing to do first is just sit down and talk about these and other issues. As writing coach, I can help facilitate that conversation. Please book time to speak with me if you feel it will be useful for your next collaboration.

References

Helgesson, G. (2020). Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices. Research Ethics, 16(1-2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898403

Jabbehdari, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2017). Authorship norms and project structures in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(5), 872–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917697192

Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 199-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5