How to List the Authors and Addresses in your Scientific Paper

1. THE ORDER OF THE NAMES

“If you have co-authors, problems about authorship can range from the trivial to the catastrophic” (O’Connor 1991, p. 10).

The easiest part of preparing a scientific paper is simply entering the bylines: the authors and addresses. Sometimes.

We haven’t yet heard of a duel being fought over the order of listing of authors, but there have been instances in which otherwise reasonable, rational colleagues have become bitter enemies solely because they could not agree on whose names should be listed or in what order.

What is the right order? Unfortunately, there are no agreed-upon rules or generally accepted conventions. Some authors, perhaps to avoid arguments among themselves, agree to list their names alphabetically. In the field of mathe­matics, this practice appears to be standard. Some pairs of researchers who repeatedly collaborate take turns being listed first. If allowed by the journal, sometimes papers include a note indicating that the first two authors contrib­uted equally to the research.

In the past, there was a general tendency to list the head of the laboratory (or, more generally, the head of the research group) as an author whether or not he or she actively participated in the research. Often, the “head” was placed last (second oftwo authors, third ofthree, etc.). As a result, the terminal spot seemed
to acquire prestige. Thus, two authors, neither of whom was head of a laboratory or even necessarily a senior professor, would vie for the second spot. If there were three or more authors, the prestige-seeking author would want the first or last position, but not the one in between.

Commonly, the first author is the person who played the lead role in the research. Qualification to be listed first does not depend on rank. A graduate stu­dent, or even an undergraduate, may be listed first if he or she led the research project. And even Nobel laureates are not to be listed first unless their contri­butions predominate. Multiple authors may then be listed approximately in order of decreasing contribution to the work. In some fields, the head of the laboratory is still often listed last, in which case this position may continue to command particular respect. However, the head should be included only if he or she indeed at least provided guidance. In general, all those listed as authors should have been involved enough to defend the paper or a substantial aspect thereof. Some authors who did not participate substantially in the research have come to regret their inclusion when the reported research was found deficient or even fraudulent.

There is often a tendency to use the laundry-list approach, naming as an author practically everyone in the laboratory. In addition, the trend toward col-laborative research is steadily increasing. Thus, the average number of authors per paper is on the rise.

2. DEFINITION OF AUTHORSHIP

Perhaps we can now define authorship by saying that the listing of authors should include those, and only those, who actively contributed to the overall conceptualization, design, and execution of the research. Further, the authors should normally be listed in order of importance to the research. Colleagues or supervisors should neither ask to have their names on manuscripts nor allow their names to be put on manuscripts reporting research with which they themselves have not been intimately involved. An author of a paper should be defined as one who takes intellectual responsibility for the research results being reported. However, this definition must be tempered by realizing that modern science in many fields is collaborative and multidisciplinary. It may be unrealistic to assume that all authors can defend all aspects of a paper writ­ten by contributors from a variety of disciplines. Even so, each author should be held fully responsible for his or her choice of colleagues.

Admittedly, deciding on authorship is not always easy. It is often incredibly difficult to analyze the intellectual input to a paper. Certainly, those who have worked together intensively for months or years on a research problem might have difficulty in remembering who had the original research concept or whose brilliant idea was the key to the success of the experiments. And what do these colleagues do when everything suddenly falls into place as a result of a search­ing question by the traditional “guy in the next lab” who had nothing whatever to do with the research?

Each listed author should have made an important contribution to the study being reported, with the word important referring to those aspects of the study that produced new information, the concept that defines an original scientific paper.

The sequence of authors on a published paper should be decided, unani­mously, before the research is started. A change may be required later, depend­ing on which turn the research takes, but it is foolish to leave this important question of authorship to the very end of the research process.

In some fields, it is not rare to see 10 or more authors listed at the head of a paper. For example, a paper by F. Bulos and others (Phys. Rev. Letters 13:486, 1964) had 27 authors and only 12 paragraphs. Such papers frequently come from laboratories that are so small that 10 people couldn’t fit into the lab, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the experiment. What accounts for the tendency to list a host of authors? There may be several reasons, but one of them no doubt relates to the publish-or-perish syndrome. Some workers wheedle or cajole their colleagues so effectively that they become authors of most or all of the papers coming out of their laboratory. Their research produc­tivity might in fact be meager, yet at year’s end their publication lists might indeed be extensive. In some institutions, such padded lists might result in promotion. Nonetheless, the practice is not recommended. Perhaps a few admi­nistrators are fooled, and momentary advantages are sometimes gained by these easy riders. But we suspect that good scientists do not allow dilution of their own work by adding other people’s names for minuscule contributions, nor do good scientists want their own names sullied by addition of the names of a whole herd of lightweights.

To repeat, the scientific paper should list as authors only those who contrib­uted substantially to the work. Unjustified listing of multiple authors adversely affects the real investigators and can lead to bibliographic nightmares. For more on issues relating to the definition of authorship, see Davidoff (2000), Claxton (2005), Scott-Lichter and the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (2012), and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2014).

3. DEFINING THE ORDER: AN EXAMPLE

Perhaps the following example will help clarify the level of conceptual or tech­nical involvement that should define authorship.

Suppose that Scientist A designs a series of experiments that might result in important new knowledge, and then Scientist A tells Technician B exactly how to perform the experiments. If the experiments work out and a manuscript results, Scientist A should be the sole author, even though Technician B did all the physical work. (Of course, the assistance of Technician B should be recog­nized in the acknowledgments.)

Now let us suppose that the experiments just described do not work out. Technician B takes the negative results to Scientist A and says something like, “I think we might get this damned strain to grow if we change the incubation temperature from 24 to 37°C and if we add serum albumin to the medium.” Scientist A agrees to a trial, the experiments this time yield the desired outcome, and a paper results. Technician B also provides some insights that contribute to the interpretation of the results. In this case, Scientist A and Technician B, in that order, should both be listed as authors.

Let us take this example one step further. Suppose that the experiments at 37°C and with serum albumin work, but that Scientist A perceives that there is now an obvious loose end; that is, growth under these conditions suggests that the test organism is a pathogen, whereas the previously published literature had indicated that this organism was nonpathogenic. Scientist A now asks col­league Scientist C, an expert in pathogenic microbiology, to test this organism for pathogenicity. Scientist C runs a quick test by injecting the test substance into laboratory mice in a standard procedure that any medical microbiologist would use and confirms pathogenicity. A few important sentences are then added to the manuscript, and the paper is published. Scientist A and Technician B are listed as authors; the assistance of Scientist C is noted in the acknow­ledgments.

Suppose, however, that Scientist C gets interested in this peculiar strain and proceeds to conduct a series of well-planned experiments that lead to the con­clusion that this particular strain is not just mouse-pathogenic, but is the long- sought culprit in certain rare human infections. Thus, two new tables of data are added to the manuscript, and the results and discussion are rewritten. The paper is then published listing Scientist A, Technician B, and Scientist C as authors. (A case could be made for listing Scientist C as the second author.)

4. SPECIFYING CONTRIBUTIONS

Some journals require a list of which author or authors did what—for exam­ple, who designed the research, who gathered the data, who analyzed the data, and who wrote the paper. Some journals publish this list of contributors with the paper. Others just keep it for their own information. Sometimes, there are contributors who are not authors—for example, people who obtained some of the data but did not participate more broadly in the research or who provided technical or other guidance.

Requiring this list of contributions can have at least two advantages. First, it helps ensure that everyone listed as an author deserves to be listed—and that no one who ought to be listed has been left out. Second, if the list is pub­lished, it can help readers determine which author to contact for which type of information.

5. PROPER AND CONSISTENT FORM

As to names of authors, the preferred designation normally is given name, middle initial, surname. If an author uses only initials, which has been a regret­table tendency in science, the scientific literature may become confused.

If there are two people named Jonathan B. Jones, the literature services can probably keep them straight (by addresses). But if dozens of people published under the name J. B. Jones (especially if, on occasion, some ofthem use Jonathan B. Jones), the retrieval services have a hopeless task in keeping things neat and tidy. Many scientists resist the temptation to change their names (for example, after marriage) at least in part to avoid confusion in the literature.

Instead of given name, middle initial, and surname, wouldn’t it be better to spell out the middle name? No. Again, we must realize that literature retrieval is a computerized process and that computers can be easily confused. An author with a common name (for example, Robert Jones) might be tempted to spell out his or her middle name, thinking that Robert Smith Jones is more distinctive than Robert S. Jones. However, the resulting double name is a problem. Should the computer index the author as “Jones” or “Smith Jones”? Because double names, with or without hyphens, are common, especially in England and in Latin America, this problem is not an easy one for computers (or for their programmers).

Knowing how to list one’s name on an English-language scientific paper can be difficult for international authors as different languages have different formats for names, and more than one form of transliteration can exist. For authors with Chinese names, an article by Sun and Zhou (2002) offers recom­mendations. And for authors of a variety of national origins, style manuals can provide guidance, as can editors at journals. Whatever format a scientist chooses, he or she should use it consistently in English-language scientific papers—rather than, for example, using Shou-Chu Qian on some papers, Shouchu Qian on others, and S. Chien on still others.

In general, scientific journals do not print degrees after authors’ names and do not include titles such as Dr. (You know what “B.S.” means. “M.S.” is More of the Same. “Ph.D.” is Piled Higher and Deeper. “M.D.” is Much Deeper.) However, most medical journals do list degrees after the names. Even in med­ical journals, however, degrees are not given in the references. Contributors should consult the journal’s instructions to authors or a recent issue regarding preferred usage.

6. LISTING THE ADDRESSES

The principles for listing the addresses are simple but often violated. There­fore, authors cannot always be connected with addresses. Most often, however, it has been the style of the journal that creates confusion, rather than sins of commission or omission by the author.

With one author, one address is given (the name and address of the labora­tory in which the work was done). If, before publication, the author has moved to a different address, the new address should be indicated in a “present address” footnote.

When two or more authors are listed, each in a different institution, the addresses should be listed in the same order as the authors.

The main probl em arises when a paper is published by, let us say, three authors from two institutions. In such instances, each author’s name and address should include an appropriate designation such as a superior a, b, or c after the author’s name and before (or after) the appropriate address. (Some­times a journal may just request the affiliation of each author and then do the formatting itself. In this regard as in others, follow the instructions to authors.)

This convention has been useful to readers wanting to know whether an author is at Yale or at Harvard. Clear identification of authors and addresses has been important to several of the secondary services. For these services to function properly, they needed to know whether a paper published by an author with a common name was by the person with that name at Iowa State, Cornell, Cambridge University in England, or Peking University. Only when authors could be properly identified could their publications be grouped together in citation indexes.

7. A SOLUTION: ORCID

Even with addresses, authors can be difficult to distinguish from one another— for example, if two scientists with the same name work at the same institu­tion. Also, some scientists move from one institution to another or do not state their names the same way on all their papers over the years, and so their work is hard to track. Fortunately, a mechanism now exists to unambiguously iden­tify each author.

This mechanism is ORCID, which stands for “Open Researcher and Con­tributor ID.” An ORCID identifier is a persistent identification number that you can obtain and include with your research communications. When you apply at the ORCID website, you receive a unique identification number and establish an ORCID record online. You can then associate this number with your journal articles, grant proposals, and other writings, both in the future and retroactively. Many journals now ask authors to supply their ORCID iden­tifiers. Information about the ORCID initiative and a link through which to obtain an ORCID identifier appear at orcid.org.

8. PURPOSES OF THE ADDRESSES

Remember that the address serves two purposes. It helps to identify the author; it also indicates how to contact him or her. Because scientists now communi­cate largely by email, an email address generally should be included at least for the author to whom inquiries about the paper should be conveyed. Some jour­nals use asterisks, footnotes, or the acknowledgments to identify this person. Authors should be aware of journal policy in this regard, and they should decide in advance which author will serve in this role.

The author who should receive inquiries is called the corresponding author. Journals ask that a corresponding author be designated for each paper. The corresponding author typically submits the paper, receives the editor’s decision whether to publish it, submits revisions, works with the editorial office after acceptance (for example, by answering questions from the manuscript editor and checking page proofs), and responds to inquiries from readers. The corre­sponding author should be someone who expects to be readily reachable during and after the publication process. Opinions vary as to whether being a corre­sponding author is an honor or just a task.

Unless scientists wish to publish anonymously (or as close to it as possi­ble), full names and a full address should be considered obligatory.

Source: Gastel Barbara, Day Robert A. (2016), How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, Greenwood; 8th edition.

6 thoughts on “How to List the Authors and Addresses in your Scientific Paper

  1. Lakeisha says:

    Excellent way of explaining, and pleasant article to take information on the topic
    of my presentation subject matter, which i am going to convey in school.

  2. RAJADOMINO says:

    I think the admin of this web site is actually working hard in favor of his web page, as here every material is quality based
    material.

Leave a Reply

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