lead author in research paper

• 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
• CAREER FEATURE
• 16 December 2019

What publishing as a lead author has taught me

• Chris Woolston 0

Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

With a new year approaching, researchers everywhere are taking stock of their work and their future. Even for those who had successes this year, 2020 holds uncertainty as well as promise. We asked scientists who were first-time lead authors on a paper published in Nature or a Nature journal in 2019 to talk about their careers and lessons they have learnt.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 576 , 499-501 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03842-4

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

Career News 18 APR 24

Deadly diseases and inflatable suits: how I found my niche in virology research

Spotlight 17 APR 24

How young people benefit from Swiss apprenticeships

Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts

Nature Index 17 APR 24

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

Structure peer review to make it more robust

World View 16 APR 24

2024 Recruitment notice Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology: Shenzhen, China

The wide-ranging expertise drawing from technical, engineering or science professions...

Shenzhen,China

Shenzhen Institute of Synthetic Biology

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Research Associate - Brain Cancer

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Senior Manager, Animal Care

Research associate - genomics.

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

Quick links

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

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, who is in charge understanding authorship order changes in academic publishing.

• The Charlesworth Group
• 04 July, 2023

The Ethics of Authorship: How to deal with late authorship changes

Academic research is a collaborative effort in which researchers work together to attain a common goal. The culmination of this process, in which authorship is crucial, is the publication of a research report. Authorship reflects not only a person's involvement in the research study but also their reputation and accountability for the results.

Criteria for Defining Authorship

Authorship is an important characteristic that displays an individual's contribution and legitimacy to a research effort. For an individual to be listed as an author of a research paper, several conditions must be met. 

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides guidelines for authorship, which include the following criteria:

1- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work

2- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content

3- Final approval of the version to be published

4- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

While all authors contribute to the research project, there are different authorship roles that signify different levels of contribution . 

1- The corresponding author is responsible for handling the communication with the journal editor and ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission. 

2- The lead author is an individual who has contributed the most to the research project and may also be the first author listed on the paper.

3- Co-authors are the ones who have contributed to the research project, but their contributions may not be as substantial as that of the lead author.

Distinguishing Between Authorship Roles

Understanding the various authorship roles and criteria   is critical for ensuring that credit is given where it is due and avoiding potential author disputes. The authorship roles and sequence may differ based on the topic of study and the needs of the journal.

Before submission, the corresponding author must ensure that all authors are aware of their roles and duties and have agreed on the final authorship order. The authorship process can be expedited by adhering to the field's and journal's norms and traditions, and each individual's work can be duly recognised. 

While all authors contribute to the research, distinct authorship roles denote varying levels of commitment. The corresponding author serves as the journal editor's principal point of contact, and they are responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper before submission. The lead author is usually the person who has made the greatest contributions to the research, and they may also be the first author mentioned in the article. Co-authors are those who participated in the research but not as significantly as the lead author.

Determining Authorship Order Fairly

The order of authors can represent each individual's contribution to the research endeavour as well as the exposure and acknowledgement of the writers.

To ascertain authorship order, researchers can use one of the numerous conventions. In certain fields, the first author is the person who has made the greatest contributions to the research project, and in others, the last author is the senior author who has provided supervision and money for the study.

Another criterion that may influence   authorship order is equal contribution . In such circumstances, writers can be listed alphabetically or by the amount of contribution, they provided to the project.

In addition to these conventions, authors must follow particular criteria and requirements when determining authorship order. Some publications, for example, ask authors to provide a brief summary of each author's contribution to the project, which is subsequently utilised to determine authorship order.

It is critical for authors to communicate clearly and openly about the authorship order. Before submitting, all writers should understand their roles and duties and agree on the final authorship order. This can aid in the avoidance of any potential disputes or conflicts that may occur following publication.

What to Do When the Authorship Order Is Changed? 

The corresponding author may need to change the authorship order for various reasons, such as a change in the contribution of the authors or a dispute between the authors. However, making such changes after the first round of peer review can be challenging. 

Guidelines for Changing Authorship Order: 

1- Compliance with COPE Protocol: 

Most journals require conformity with the Council on Publication Ethics (COPE) criteria when adding or removing authors or modifying the authorship order after the initial round of peer review. According to the COPE protocol, all original and extra authors must sign a letter stating the cause for the change and certifying that all authors consent to the addition, removal, or reordering of authors.

2- Letter Signed by All Authors:

According to these requirements, all original and extra writers must sign a letter outlining the rationale for the change and certifying that all authors consent to the addition, removal, or reordering of authors. This letter must detail the justification for the change, including why the change is required and how it will benefit the research paper.

It is unlikely that the corresponding author can change the authorship order without a signed letter from all authors. This is because the journal's editors and reviewers will have based their assessment on the original authorship order, and changing it without proper justification may compromise the credibility of the research.

If the corresponding author tries to change the authorship order without the approval of all the authors involved, the other authors might intervene. They can contact the editors of the journal and express their concerns or objections, which may result in the paper being withdrawn or rejected.

Authorship is an imperative aspect of academic research since it demonstrates a person's involvement, contribution, and accountability for the research endeavour. The authorship duties and criteria should be clearly specified and authorship order should be determined equitably and publicly. Any modifications to the authorship order after the first round of peer review must follow the COPE process and be accompanied by a signed letter from all authors involved. By following these standards, researchers can guarantee that credit is given where it is due while still maintaining the credibility of their research. Remember that a fair and transparent authoring process is the bedrock of successful academic cooperation and research projects.

Share with your colleagues

Ethics in academic publishing: Understanding ‘gift’ authorships

Charlesworth Author Services 21/11/2019 00:00:00

Authorship, and the role of the ‘corresponding author’

Charlesworth Author Services 17/10/2019 00:00:00

Legitimate authorship and contribution in scientific publishing

Charlesworth Author Services 23/12/2021 00:00:00

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper

* E-mail: [email protected]

¶ ‡ MAF is the lead author. All authors contributed equally to this work. Besides for MAF, author order was computed randomly.

Affiliation Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

Affiliation Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Affiliation Marine Institute, Furnace, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland

Affiliation Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America

Affiliation UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Lake Research, Magdeburg, Germany

Affiliation Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Affiliation Department of Biology, Pomona College, Claremont, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Ecology and Genetics/Limnology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Affiliation Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America

Affiliation Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Girona, Spain

• Marieke A. Frassl, 
• David P. Hamilton, 
• Blaize A. Denfeld, 
• Elvira de Eyto, 
• Stephanie E. Hampton, 
• Philipp S. Keller, 
• Sapna Sharma, 
• Abigail S. L. Lewis, 
• Gesa A. Weyhenmeyer, 

Published: November 15, 2018

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508
• Reader Comments

Citation: Frassl MA, Hamilton DP, Denfeld BA, de Eyto E, Hampton SE, Keller PS, et al. (2018) Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. PLoS Comput Biol 14(11): e1006508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2018 Frassl 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: This work was supported by the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON; www.gleon.org ). ML and PK received the GLEON student travel fund. GW was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Grant No. 2016-04153. NC had the support of the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral programme (BP-2016-00215). PK was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant SP 1570/1-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

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

Introduction

Science is increasingly done in large teams [ 1 ], making it more likely that papers will be written by several authors from different institutes, disciplines, and cultural backgrounds. A small number of “Ten simple rules” papers have been written on collaboration [ 2 , 3 ] and on writing [ 4 , 5 ] but not on combining the two. Collaborative writing with multiple authors has additional challenges, including varied levels of engagement of coauthors, provision of fair credit through authorship or acknowledgements, acceptance of a diversity of work styles, and the need for clear communication. Miscommunication, a lack of leadership, and inappropriate tools or writing approaches can lead to frustration, delay of publication, or even the termination of a project.

To provide insight into collaborative writing, we use our experience from the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) [ 6 ] to frame 10 simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. We consider a collaborative multi-authored paper to have three or more people from at least two different institutions. A multi-authored paper can be a result of a single discrete research project or the outcome of a larger research program that includes other papers based on common data or methods. The writing of a multi-authored paper is embedded within a broader context of planning and collaboration among team members. Our recommended rules include elements of both the planning and writing of a paper, and they can be iterative, although we have listed them in numerical order. It will help to revisit the rules frequently throughout the writing process. With the 10 rules outlined below, we aim to provide a foundation for writing multi-authored papers and conducting exciting and influential science.

Rule 1: Build your writing team wisely

The writing team is formed at the beginning of the writing process. This can happen at different stages of a research project. Your writing team should be built upon the expertise and interest of your coauthors. A good way to start is to review the initial goal of the research project and to gather everyone’s expectations for the paper, allowing all team members to decide whether they want to be involved in the writing. This step is normally initiated by the research project leader(s). When appointing the writing team, ensure that the team has the collective expertise required to write the paper and stay open to bringing in new people if required. If you need to add a coauthor at a later stage, discuss this first with the team ( Rule 8 ) and be clear as to how the person can contribute to the paper and qualify as a coauthor (Rules 4 and 10 ). When in doubt about selecting coauthors, in general we suggest to opt for being inclusive. A shared list with contact information and the contribution of all active coauthors is useful for keeping track of who is involved throughout the writing process.

In order to share the workload and increase the involvement of all coauthors during the writing process, you can distribute specific roles within the team (e.g., a team leader and a facilitator [see Rule 2 ] and a note taker [see Rule 8 ]).

Rule 2: If you take the lead, provide leadership

Leadership is critical for a multi-authored paper to be written in a timely and satisfactory manner. This is especially true for large, joint projects. The leader of the writing process and first author typically are the same person, but they don’t have to be. The leader is the contact person for the group, keeps the writing moving forward, and generally should manage the writing process through to publication. It is key that the leader provides strong communication and feedback and acknowledges contributions from the group. The leader should incorporate flexibility with respect to timelines and group decisions. For different leadership styles, refer to [ 7 , 8 ].

When developing collaborative multi-authored papers, the leader should allow time for all voices to be heard. In general, we recommend leading multi-authored papers through consensus building and not hierarchically because the manuscript should represent the views of all authors ( Rule 9 ). At the same time, the leader needs to be able to make difficult decisions about manuscript structure, content, and author contributions by maintaining oversight of the project as a whole.

Finally, a good leader must know when to delegate tasks and share the workload, e.g., by delegating facilitators for a meeting or assigning responsibilities and subleaders for sections of a manuscript. At times, this may include recognizing that something has changed, e.g., a change in work commitments by a coauthor or a shift in the paper’s focus. In such a case, it may be timely for someone else to step in as leader and possibly also as first author, while the previous leader’s work is acknowledged in the manuscript or as a coauthor ( Rule 4 ).

Rule 3: Create a data management plan

If not already implemented at the start of the research project, we recommend that you implement a data management plan (DMP) that is circulated at an early stage of the writing process and agreed upon by all coauthors (see also [ 9 ] and https://dmptool.org/ ; https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ ). The DMP should outline how project data will be shared, versioned, stored, and curated and also details of who within the team will have access to the (raw) data during and post publication.

Multi-authored papers often use and/or produce large datasets originating from a variety of sources or data contributors. Each of these sources may have different demands about how data and code are used and shared during analysis and writing and after publication. Previous articles published in the “Ten simple rules” series provide guidance on the ethics of big-data research [ 10 ], how to enable multi-site collaborations through open data sharing [ 3 ], how to store data [ 11 ], and how to curate data [ 12 ]. As many journals now require datasets to be shared through an open access platform as a prerequisite to paper publication, the DMP should include detail on how this will be achieved and what data (including metadata) will be included in the final dataset.

Your DMP should not be a complicated, detailed document and can often be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Once your DMP is finalized, all data providers and coauthors should confirm that they agree with the plan and that their institutional and/or funding agency obligations are met. It is our experience within GLEON that these obligations vary widely across the research community, particularly at an intercontinental scale.

Rule 4: Jointly decide on authorship guidelines

Defining authorship and author order are longstanding issues in science [ 13 ]. In order to avoid conflict, you should be clear early on in the research project what level of participation is required for authorship. You can do this by creating a set of guidelines to define the contributions and tasks worthy of authorship. For an authorship policy template, see [ 14 ] and check your institute’s and the journal’s authorship guidelines. For example, generating ideas, funding acquisition, data collection or provision, analyses, drafting figures and tables, and writing sections of text are discrete tasks that can constitute contributions for authorship (see, e.g., the CRediT system: http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT [ 15 ]). All authors are expected to participate in multiple tasks, in addition to editing and approving the final document. It is debated whether merely providing data does qualify for coauthorship. If data provision is not felt to be grounds for coauthorship, you should acknowledge the data provider in the Acknowledgments [ 16 ].

Your authorship guidelines can also increase transparency and help to clarify author order. If coauthors have contributed to the paper at different levels, task-tracking and indicating author activity on various tasks can help establish author order, with the person who contributed most in the front. Other options include groupings based on level of activity [ 17 ] or having the core group in the front and all other authors listed alphabetically. If every coauthor contributed equally, you can use alphabetical order [ 18 ] or randomly assigned order [ 19 ]. Joint first authorship should be considered when appropriate. We encourage you to make a statement about author order (e.g., [ 19 ]) and to generate authorship attribution statements; many journals will include these as part of the Acknowledgments if a separate statement is not formally required. For those who do not meet expectations for authorship, an alternative to authorship is to list contributors in the Acknowledgments [ 15 ]. Be aware of coauthors’ expectations and disciplinary, cultural, and other norms in what constitutes author order. For example, in some disciplines, the last author is used to indicate the academic advisor or team leader. We recommend revisiting definitions of authorship and author order frequently because roles and responsibilities may change during the writing process.

Rule 5: Decide on a writing strategy

The writing strategy should be adapted according to the needs of the team (white shapes in Fig 1 ) and based on the framework given through external factors (gray shapes in Fig 1 ). For example, a research paper that uses wide-ranging data might have several coauthors but one principal writer (e.g., a PhD candidate) who was conducting the analysis, whereas a comment or review in a specific research field might be written jointly by all coauthors based on parallel discussion. In most cases, the approach that everyone writes on everything is not possible and is very inefficient. Most commonly, the paper is split into sub-sections based on what aspects of the research the coauthors have been responsible for or based on expertise and interest of the coauthors. Regardless of which writing strategy you choose, the importance of engaging all team members in defining the narrative, format, and structure of the paper cannot be overstated; this will preempt having to rewrite or delete sections later.

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

Different writing strategies ranging from very inclusive to minimally inclusive: group writing = everyone writes on everything; subgroup writing = document is split up into expertise areas, each individual contributes to a subsection; core writing group = a subgroup of a few coauthors writes the paper; scribe writing = one person writes based on previous group discussions; principal writer = one person drafts and writes the paper (writing styles adapted from [ 20 ]). Which writing strategy you choose depends on external factors (filled, gray shapes), such as the interdisciplinarity of the study or the time pressure of the paper to be published, and affects the payback (dashed, white shapes). An increasing height of the shape indicates an increasing quantity of the decision criteria, such as the interdisciplinarity, diversity, feasibility, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508.g001

For an efficient writing process, try to use the active voice in suggestions and make direct edits rather than simply stating that a section needs revision. For all writing strategies, the lead author(s) has to ensure that the completed text is cohesive.

Rule 6: Choose digital tools to suit your needs

A suitable technology for writing your multi-authored paper depends upon your chosen writing approach ( Rule 5 ). For projects in which the whole group writes together, synchronous technologies such as Google Docs or Overleaf work well by allowing for interactive writing that facilitates version control (see also [ 21 ]). In contrast, papers written sequentially, in parallel by subsections, or by only one author may allow for using conventional programs such as Microsoft Word or LibreOffice. In any case, you should create a plan early on for version control, comments, and tracking changes. Regularly mark the version of the document, e.g., by including the current date in the file name. When working offline and distributing the document, add initials in the file name to indicate the progress and most recent editor.

High-quality communication is important for efficient discussion on the paper’s content. When picking a virtual meeting technology, consider the number of participants permitted in a single group call, ability to record the meeting, audio and visual quality, and the need for additional features such as screencasting or real-time notes. Especially for large groups, it can be helpful for people who are not currently speaking to mute their microphones (blocking background noise), to use the video for nonverbal communication (e.g., to show approval or rejection and to help nonnative speakers), or to switch off the video when internet speeds are slow. More guidelines for effective virtual meetings are available in Hampton and colleagues [ 22 ].

In between virtual meetings, virtual technologies can help to streamline communication (e.g., https://slack.com ) and can facilitate the writing process through shared to-do lists and task boards including calendar features (e.g., http://trello.com ).

With all technologies, accessibility, ease of use, and cost are important decision criteria. Note that some coauthors will be very comfortable with new technologies, whereas others may not be. Both should be ready to compromise in order to be as efficient and inclusive as possible. Basic training in unfamiliar technologies will likely pay off in the long term.

Rule 7: Set clear timelines and adhere to them

As for the overall research project, setting realistic and effective deadlines maintains the group’s momentum and facilitates on-schedule paper completion [ 23 ]. Before deciding to become a coauthor, consider your own time commitments. As a coauthor, commit to set deadlines, recognize the importance of meeting them, and notify the group early on if you realize that you will not be able to meet a deadline or attend a meeting. Building consensus around deadlines will ensure that internally imposed deadlines are reasonably timed [ 23 ] and will increase the likelihood that they are met. Keeping to deadlines and staying on task require developing a positive culture of encouragement within the team [ 14 ]. You should respect people’s time by being punctual for meetings, sending out drafts and the meeting agenda on schedule, and ending meetings on time.

To develop a timeline, we recommend starting by defining the “final” deadline. Occasionally, this date will be set “externally” (e.g., by an editorial request), but in most cases, you can set an internal consensus deadline. Thereafter, define intermediate milestones with clearly defined tasks and the time required to fulfill them. Look for and prioritize strategies that allow multiple tasks to be completed simultaneously because this allows for a more efficient timeline. Keep in mind that “however long you give yourself to complete a task is how long it will take” [ 24 ] and that group scheduling will vary depending on the selected writing strategy ( Rule 5 ). Generally, collaborative manuscripts need more draft and revision rounds than a “solo” article.

Rule 8: Be transparent throughout the process

This rule is important for the overall research project but becomes especially important when it comes to publishing and coauthorship. Being as open as possible about deadlines ( Rule 7 ) and expectations (including authorship, Rule 4 ) helps to avoid misunderstandings and conflict. Be clear about the consequences if someone does not follow the group’s rules but also be open to rediscuss rules if needed. Potential consequences of not following the group’s rules include a change in author order or removing authorship. It should also be clear that a coauthor’s edits might not be included in the final text if s/he does not contribute on time. Bad experience from past collaboration can lead to exclusion from further research projects.

As for collaboration [ 2 ], communication is key. During meetings, decide on a note taker who keeps track of the group’s discussions and decisions in meeting notes. This will help coauthors who could not attend the meeting as well as help the whole group follow up on decisions later on. Encourage everyone to provide feedback and be sincere and clear if something is not working—writing a multi-authored paper is a learning process. If you feel someone is frustrated, try to address the issue promptly within the group rather than waiting and letting the problem escalate. When resolving a conflict, it is important to actively listen and focus the conversation on how to reach a solution that benefits the group as a whole [ 25 ]. Democratic decisions can often help to resolve differing opinions.

Rule 9: Cultivate equity, diversity, and inclusion

Multi-authored papers will likely have a team of coauthors with diverse demographics and cultural values, which usually broadens the scope of knowledge, experience, and background. While the benefit of a diverse team is clear [ 14 ], successfully integrating diversity in a collaborative team effort requires increased awareness of differences and proactive conflict management [ 25 ]. You can cultivate diversity by holding members accountable to equity, diversity, and inclusivity guidelines (e.g., https://www.ryerson.ca/edistem/ ).

If working across cultures, you will need to select the working language (both for verbal and written communications); this is most commonly the publication language. When team members are not native speakers in the working language, you should always speak slowly, enunciate clearly, and avoid local expressions and acronyms, as well as listen closely and ask questions if you do not understand. Besides language, be empathetic when listening to others’ opinions in order to genuinely understand your coauthors’ points of view [ 26 ].

When giving verbal or written feedback, be constructive but also be aware of how different cultures receive and react to feedback [ 27 ]. Inclusive writing and speaking provide engagement, e.g., “ we could do that,” and acknowledge input between peers. In addition, you can create opportunities for expression of different personalities and opinions by adopting a participatory group model (e.g., [ 28 ]).

Rule 10: Consider the ethical implications of your coauthorship

Being a coauthor is both a benefit and a responsibility: having your name on a publication implies that you have contributed substantially, that you are familiar with the content of the paper, and that you have checked the accuracy of the content as best you can. To conduct a self-assessment as to whether your contributions merit coauthorship, start by revisiting authorship guidelines for your group ( Rule 4 ).

Be sure to verify the scientific accuracy of your contributions; e.g., if you contributed data, it is your responsibility that the data are correct, or if you performed laboratory or data analyses, it is your responsibility that the analyses are correct. If an author is accused of scientific misconduct, there are likely to be consequences for all the coauthors. Although there are currently no clear rules for coauthor responsibility [ 29 ], be aware of your responsibility and find a balance between trust and control.

One of the final steps before submission of a multi-authored paper is for all coauthors to confirm that they have contributed to the paper, agree upon the final text, and support its submission. This final confirmation, initiated by the lead author, will ensure that all coauthors have considered their role in the work and can affirm contributions. It is important that you repeat the confirmation step each time the paper is revised and resubmitted. Set deadlines for the confirmation steps and make clear that coauthorship cannot be guaranteed if confirmations are not done.

When writing collaborative multi-authored papers, communication is more complex, and consensus can be more difficult to achieve. Our experience shows that structured approaches can help to promote optimal solutions and resolve problems around authorship as well as data ownership and curation. Clear structures are vital to establish a safe and positive environment that generates trust and confidence among the coauthors [ 14 ]. The latter is especially challenging when collaborating over large distances and not meeting face-to-face.

Since there is no single “right approach,” our rules can serve as a starting point that can be modified specifically to your own team and project needs. You should revisit these rules frequently and progressively adapt what works best for your team and the project.

We believe that the benefits of working in diverse groups outweigh the transaction costs of coordinating many people, resulting in greater diversity of approaches, novel scientific outputs, and ultimately better papers. If you bring curiosity, patience, and openness to team science projects and act with consideration and empathy, especially when writing, the experience will be fun, productive, and rewarding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Meredith Holgerson and Samantha Oliver for their input in the very beginning of this project. We thank the Global Lake Observatory Network (GLEON), which has provided a trustworthy and collaborative work environment.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 7. Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications; 1994.
• 8. Braun S, Peus C, Frey D, Knipfer K. Leadership in Academia: Individual and Collective Approaches to the Quest for Creativity and Innovation. In: Peus C, Braun S, Schyns B, editors. Leadership Lessons from Compelling Contexts: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2016. pp. 349–365.
• 24. Northcote Parkinson C. Parkinson’s Law: Or the Pursuit of Progress. 1st ed. London: John Murray; 1958.
• 25. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Collaboration & Team Science: A Field Guide. National Institutes of Health. August 2010. https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/display/NIHOMBUD/Home . [cited 19 February 2018].
• 26. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. London: Simon & Schuster; 2004.
• 27. Meyer E. The Culture Map (INTL ED): Decoding How People Think, Lead, and Get Things Done Across Cultures. 1st ed. New York: PublicAffairs; 2016.
• 28. Kaner S. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2014.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs

About The BMJ

• Resources for authors
• Forms, policies, and ethics
• Authorship & contributorship

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ( ICMJE Recommendations 2018 ) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND • Final approval of the version to be published; AND • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

We include only one corresponding author per article. Any further contribution details (eg, equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgement sections at the end of the article.

The BMJ requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. We recognise only natural persons over 18 years of age as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. They will also be expected as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.

The byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and Medline lists as authors whichever names appear on the byline. If the byline includes a group name, Medline will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators, sometimes called non-author contributors, if there is a note associated with the byline clearly stating that the individual names are elsewhere in the paper and whether those names are authors or collaborators.

At The BMJ we want authors to assure us that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. In addition we want assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria but has not been included as an author.

When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)—see here and here .

AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

Contributorship

The BMJ lists contributors in two ways. Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper and, secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. This is a good place to include contributions by patients or members of the public who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles. We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. See Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Contributorship and guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and are sometimes hard to define for other articles. Each contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for the overall content as guarantor(s). For articles in The BMJ that do not report original research - such as editorials, clinical reviews, and education and debate - please state who had the idea for the article, who performed the literature search, who wrote the article, and who is the guarantor (the contributor who accepts full responsibility for the finished article, had access to any data, and controlled the decision to publish). For non-research articles that include case reports such as lessons of the week, drug points, and interactive case reports, please also state who identified and/or managed the case(s).

Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person's contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants. See Authorship is dying; long live contributorship.

Alteration to authorship or contributorship

Any change in authors and/or contributors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, change of order to the authors, or contributions being attributed differently. Any alterations must be explained to the editor. The editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Group authorship

If there is a very large number of authors we may ask for confirmation that everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. If they did, we may then require that the authors form a group whose name will appear in the article byline.

We appreciate that authors may be concerned that their work will not be properly recognised if they form a group, but this is unfounded. Medline guidance can handle group authorship and still give each individual due credit:

"When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation."

Key points:

• A Medline citation may contain an array of personal author names, group (or corporate) author names, and collaborator names. • Personal author names are included in Medline when the author names appear in the article byline, or are explicitly identified anywhere else in the text of the article as the authors or as the members of the writing group or writing committee for the article. • Group author names (also known as corporate, organization or collective names) are included in Medline when such names appear in the article byline. • When a group name for a specific consortium, committee, study group, or the like appears in an article byline, the personal names of the members of that group may be published in the article text. Such names are entered as collaborator names for the Medline citation. • Collaborator names are entered for a Medline citation only when a group (corporate) author name is present for the citation. • More than one group name may appear for a citation, and a group name may appear along with personal author names. • For articles that represent a formal guideline or practice guideline, the name of the guideline-issuing body is entered as a group name for the Medline citation, even if that name does not appear in the article byline.

What this means for The BMJ 's authors

a) if authors form a group for the article's main byline they will also be listed individually:

• As collaborators in the article's Medline/PubMed record; • As authors in a group authorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com; and • As contributors in the contributorship statement at the end of the article on thebmj.com.

b) however, for The BMJ 's research articles with many authors, where those authors do not opt to form a group, we will not be able to publish a BMJ pico in the print issue of The BMJ . Such research articles will be for online only (thebmj.com) publication only.

Here's a research article in The BMJ with group authorship as it appeared on Medline, with all collaborators clearly listed as individuals:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20123835

And here's how the individual authors for that article were listed on thebmj.com:

1. What appeared at the top of the article and was dowloadable to citation manager:

Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries. Wei-Hong Zhang, Catherine Deneux-Tharaux, Peter Brocklehurst, Edmund Juszczak, Matthew Joslin, Sophie Alexander, on behalf of the EUPHRATES Group. BMJ 2010;340:c293, doi: 10.1136/bmj.c293 (Published 1 February 2010)

2. What appeared at the end of the article in an authorship statement:

The following are members of EUPHRATES (EUropean Project on obstetric Haemorrhage, Reduction, Attitudes, Trial and Early warning System): Sophie Alexander (project leader, Belgium), Diogo Ayres-de-Campos (Portugal), Istvan Berbik (Hungary), Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle (France), Gérard Bréart (France), Peter Brocklehurst (UK), Vicenç Cararach (Spain), Anna Maria Marconi (Italy), Catherine Deneux-Tharaux (France), Risto Erkkola (Finland), Mathias Klein (Austria), Jens Langhoff-Roos (Denmark), Alison Macfarlane (UK), Walter Prendiville (Republic of Ireland), Jos van Roosmalen (Netherlands), Babill Stray-Pedersen (Norway), Carolyn Troeger (Switzerland), Clare Winter (UK), and Wei-Hong Zhang (Belgium). Also see web extra for a list of people who helped in each country.

3. What appeared at the end of the article in the contributorship statement:

Contributors: W-HZ designed data collection tools, monitored data collection for the whole trial, wrote the statistical analysis plan, cleaned and analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. She is guarantor. CD-T implemented the trial in France, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. PB analysed the data and drafted and revised the paper. EJ wrote the statistical analysis plan, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. MJ designed data collection tools,, monitored data collection for the whole trial, and revised the draft paper. SA initiated the collaborative project, designed data collection tools, implemented the trial for the all countries, monitored data collection for the whole trial, analysed the data, and drafted and revised the paper. All members of EUPHRATES designed the trial. Diogo Ayres-de-Campos, Istvan Berbik, Marie-Hélène Bouvier-Colle, Vicenç Cararach, Risto Erkkola, Mathias Klein, Walter Prendiville, Jos van Roosmalen, Babill Stray-Pedersen, and Carolyn Troeger implemented the trial in, respectively, Portugal, Hungary, France, Spain, Finland, Austria, Republic of Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland, and revised the draft paper. Gérard Bréart analysed the data and revised the draft paper. Alison Macfarlane and Clare Winter revised the draft paper.

• Publishing model
• Editorial staff
• Advisory panels
• Explore The BMJ
• BMJ Student
• How green is The BMJ?
• Sources of revenue
• Article types and preparation
• Article submission
• Competing interest policy
• Copyright, open access, and permission to reuse
• Patient consent and confidentiality
• Research Ethics
• BMJ papers audit
• Guidance for new authors
• BMJ Christmas issue
• Resources for advertisers and sponsors
• Resources for BMA members
• Resources for media
• Resources for subscribers
• Resources for readers
• Resources for reviewers
• About The BMJ app
• Poll archive
• International jobs

This week's poll

Read related article

See previous polls

• Publication Recognition

What is a Corresponding Author?

• 3 minute read
• 402.3K views

Table of Contents

Are you familiar with the terms “corresponding author” and “first author,” but you don’t know what they really mean? This is a common doubt, especially at the beginning of a researcher’s career, but easy to explain: fundamentally, a corresponding author takes the lead in the manuscript submission for publication process, whereas the first author is actually the one who did the research and wrote the manuscript.

The order of the authors can be arranged in whatever order suits the research group best, but submissions must be made by the corresponding author. It can also be the case that you don’t belong in a research group, and you want to publish your own paper independently, so you will probably be the corresponding author and first author at the same time.

Corresponding author meaning:

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Normally, he or she also ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors.

Generally, corresponding authors are senior researchers or group leaders with some – or a lot of experience – in the submission and publishing process of scientific research. They are someone who has not only contributed to the paper significantly but also has the ability to ensure that it goes through the publication process smoothly and successfully.

What is a corresponding author supposed to do?

A corresponding author is responsible for several critical aspects at each stage of a study’s dissemination – before and after publication.

If you are a corresponding author for the first time, take a look at these 6 simple tips that will help you succeed in this important task:

• Ensure that major deadlines are met
• Prepare a submission-ready manuscript
• Put together a submission package
• Get all author details correct
• Ensure ethical practices are followed
• Take the lead on open access

In short, the corresponding author is the one responsible for bringing research (and researchers) to the eyes of the public. To be successful, and because the researchers’ reputation is also at stake, corresponding authors always need to remember that a fine quality text is the first step to impress a team of peers or even a more refined audience. Elsevier’s team of language and translation professionals is always ready to perform text editing services that will provide the best possible material to go forward with a submission or/and a publication process confidently.

Who is the first author of a scientific paper?

The first author is usually the person who made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work. That includes designing the study, acquiring and analyzing data from experiments and writing the actual manuscript. As a first author, you will have to impress a vast group of players in the submission and publication processes. But, first of all, if you are in a research group, you will have to catch the corresponding author’s eye. The best way to give your work the attention it deserves, and the confidence you expect from your corresponding author, is to deliver a flawless manuscript, both in terms of scientific accuracy and grammar.

If you are not sure about the written quality of your manuscript, and you feel your career might depend on it, take full advantage of Elsevier’s professional text editing services. They can make a real difference in your work’s acceptance at each stage, before it comes out to the public.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Through our Language Editing Services , we correct proofreading errors, and check for grammar and syntax to make sure your paper sounds natural and professional. We also make sure that editors and reviewers can understand the science behind your manuscript.

With more than a hundred years of experience in publishing, Elsevier is trusted by millions of authors around the world.

Check our video Elsevier Author Services – Language Editing to learn more about Author Services.

Find more about What is a corresponding author on Pinterest:

• Research Process

What is Journal Impact Factor?

What is a Good H-index?

You may also like.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

08 Things One Must Know About Corresponding Author in a Research Paper

In the world of academia and scientific research, the publication of research papers holds immense value, serving as a gateway to disseminating knowledge, sharing discoveries, and advancing the collective understanding of various disciplines. Behind each scholarly article lies a team of dedicated researchers, and among them stands a pivotal figure known as the “Corresponding Author.” This individual shoulders a crucial responsibility, acting as the primary point of contact between the research team and the journal or conference where the paper is submitted.

In this blog post, we shall explore the multifaceted role of the corresponding author in a research paper, unravelling the significance of this position and shedding light on its various dimensions. From understanding the core responsibilities that come with this designation to addressing common questions and misconceptions, we will embark on a journey to grasp the intricacies of the corresponding author’s role in the publication process.

Introduction

Importance of designating a corresponding author in multi-author papers:, can there be more than one corresponding author in a research paper, coordinating co-authors and obtaining their approval:, handling post-publication inquiries and comments:, mediating conflicts and disputes, if any:, dealing with consent and copyright matters:, possible reasons for wanting to change the corresponding author:, challenges and considerations in making such a change:, discussing the impact of such changes on the published paper and its authors:, corresponding author:, main author:, contributions of both roles in a research paper:, whether the corresponding author is typically the first author:, pros of designating multiple corresponding authors:, cons of designating multiple corresponding authors:, contributing author:, roles of various authors in a research paper:, considerations and potential benefits of having a student as the corresponding author:.

In the vast realm of academia and scientific exploration, research papers stand as the lifeblood of knowledge dissemination and progress. These scholarly articles are the vehicles through which researchers share their groundbreaking findings, innovative ideas, and rigorous investigations with the global scientific community. As such, research papers play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape of various disciplines, paving the way for advancements and breakthroughs that fuel intellectual growth and societal development.

Within this landscape of collaborative research efforts, a key figure emerges – the “Corresponding Author.” This individual holds a position of utmost importance, acting as the linchpin that connects the research team to the larger scientific world. The corresponding author assumes a multifaceted role, with responsibilities that extend far beyond simply contributing to the research itself.

In essence, the corresponding author can be likened to the ambassador of a research paper. When a study reaches its conclusion and the team is ready to share their discoveries with the world, the corresponding author steps forward to represent the collective effort and findings of the research team. They play a critical role in orchestrating the journey of the paper, from its inception to its final destination in reputable journals or conference proceedings.

The corresponding author is typically the point of contact for the editorial boards of journals or conference organizers. They serve as the conduit through which communication flows during the submission and review process, liaising with reviewers, responding to queries, and ensuring that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s guidelines and standards.

Consider a team of researchers who have collaborated on a groundbreaking study that could potentially revolutionize a field of science. They have meticulously conducted experiments, analyzed data, and composed a comprehensive research paper detailing their findings and conclusions. Now comes the critical moment of publication.

In this scenario, the corresponding author would be the one responsible for compiling and submitting the manuscript to relevant scientific journals. They would carefully craft the cover letter, detailing the significance of their research and explaining why it merits publication in that particular journal. Additionally, the corresponding author would coordinate with co-authors to finalize the manuscript and ensure that everyone approves of the submission.

As the submission process progresses, the journal’s editorial team may reach out to the corresponding author with questions, suggestions, or revision requests. The corresponding author would diligently address these inquiries, collaborating with co-authors to make necessary adjustments. In some cases, they might need to obtain additional data or clarifications from specific team members.

After a successful peer review, the corresponding author would be the point of contact for the journal’s editorial team when addressing reviewer comments and providing the revised version of the manuscript. Finally, when the paper is accepted for publication, the corresponding author would work with the journal to finalize the paper and ensure all copyright and publication requirements are met.

In this way, the corresponding author becomes the guardian of the research, safeguarding its integrity and ensuring that it navigates the publication process smoothly to reach its intended audience – fellow researchers, scholars, and enthusiasts alike. Their tireless efforts and dedication play a pivotal role in the dissemination of knowledge and the advancement of human understanding across the scientific landscape.

1. Who is a Corresponding Author in a Research Paper?

In the realm of academic publishing, a corresponding author is a pivotal role assigned to one of the co-authors of a research paper. This individual is entrusted with representing the research team and serving as the main point of contact during the submission, peer review, and publication process. The corresponding author acts as a bridge between the research team and the journal or conference where the paper is being submitted.

Research papers are often the culmination of collaborative efforts involving multiple researchers, each contributing their expertise to the study. In such cases, designating a corresponding author becomes essential to streamline communication and ensure efficient handling of the publication process. Without a corresponding author, coordinating and managing the submission and review process could become cumbersome, leading to potential delays and miscommunications.

Let’s consider a scenario where a team of researchers from different universities collaborates on a cutting-edge study in the field of medical research. This study involves several aspects, such as experimental design, data collection, statistical analysis, and manuscript writing. Each team member contributes significantly to the research and the eventual paper.

To avoid confusion and facilitate smooth communication with the journal, the research team designates one of the co-authors as the corresponding author. This individual, often chosen based on their expertise in the subject matter or their familiarity with the publication process, takes the lead in handling manuscript submission, responding to reviewer comments, and communicating with the editorial team.

Traditionally, research papers had only one corresponding author, primarily to streamline communication and avoid ambiguity during the publication process. However, in recent years, the practice of designating multiple corresponding authors has gained some acceptance in the scientific community.

In cases of large multi-institutional studies or research projects involving numerous collaborators, the research team might decide to have more than one corresponding author. This approach can be useful in distributing responsibilities, especially when the workload is substantial or when multiple aspects of the research require specific expertise.

For instance, in a research project involving both medical researchers and statisticians, the medical researchers may designate one corresponding author from their team, while the statisticians may designate another corresponding author from their team. This way, both groups can efficiently manage the submission and review process for their respective contributions to the paper.

However, it is essential to note that the practice of having multiple corresponding authors is not universally accepted, and some journals might not permit it. Therefore, researchers should carefully review the submission guidelines of the target journal to ensure compliance with their policies.

In summary, the corresponding author plays a crucial role in managing the publication process of a research paper. By designating a responsible and knowledgeable individual, research teams can navigate the complexities of academic publishing more effectively, ensuring that their findings reach the scientific community and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

2. Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author shoulders the responsibility of preparing and submitting the research paper to the chosen journal or conference. This involves carefully adhering to the submission guidelines and ensuring that all required documents, such as cover letters, author disclosures, and supplementary materials, are provided. The corresponding author acts as the liaison between the research team and the journal’s editorial board during the submission process. They handle all communications, responding to queries from the journal and providing any additional information requested.

Imagine a team of environmental scientists conducting a comprehensive study on the impact of climate change on a particular ecosystem. Once their research is complete, the corresponding author prepares the manuscript according to the formatting guidelines specified by a respected environmental science journal. They ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper before submission. The corresponding author then submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission portal and promptly responds to any follow-up questions or requests for revisions from the journal’s editors.

In multi-author papers, the corresponding author is responsible for maintaining communication among all co-authors throughout the publication process. They coordinate efforts to finalize the manuscript, making sure all co-authors agree with the content, data, and conclusions presented in the paper. The corresponding author seeks input from co-authors on the responses to reviewer comments, addressing any concerns raised during the peer-review process.

A team of researchers collaborates on a groundbreaking study in the field of artificial intelligence, aiming to develop an innovative algorithm for speech recognition. As the corresponding author, one of the researchers takes charge of integrating feedback from all co-authors, including computer scientists, linguists, and machine learning experts. They ensure that the manuscript reflects a cohesive representation of the team’s work and that everyone is satisfied with the final version before submitting it for publication.

Once the paper is published, the corresponding author continues to play a significant role in addressing inquiries and comments from readers and fellow researchers. They respond to emails or messages requesting additional information, clarifications, or opportunities for collaboration. They also take the lead in addressing any errors or corrections that may arise post-publication.

After the publication of the AI speech recognition research paper, interested researchers and technology enthusiasts reach out to the corresponding author with questions about the methodology used in the study. The corresponding author promptly replies to each inquiry, providing detailed explanations and sharing additional insights. They may also collaborate with co-authors to prepare responses to inquiries that require expertise in specific areas.

In collaborative research endeavours, disagreements or conflicts may occasionally arise among co-authors regarding authorship attribution, data interpretation, or the direction of the research. The corresponding author plays a critical role in resolving such conflicts by facilitating open communication, listening to all perspectives, and striving to find a fair and ethical resolution.

In a collaborative study involving researchers from different cultural backgrounds, differing interpretations of certain data points lead to a dispute among co-authors. As the corresponding author, one of the researchers takes the initiative to schedule a virtual meeting where all co-authors can discuss their viewpoints and concerns openly. Through respectful dialogue and a focus on finding common ground, the corresponding author helps the team reach a consensus on how to address the disputed data in the final manuscript.

The corresponding author ensures that all necessary permissions and consents have been obtained before submitting the paper for publication. This includes obtaining consent from all co-authors, as well as any necessary permissions to use copyrighted material, such as figures or tables, in the manuscript. The corresponding author may also be responsible for handling copyright transfer agreements with the journal or conference organizers.

A team of medical researchers conducts a study involving patient data and images. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have reviewed and provided consent for the use of patient data in the paper. Additionally, they obtain permission from the hospital or institution to use the images and comply with the journal’s requirements for handling sensitive patient information. The corresponding author also signs the copyright transfer agreement on behalf of all co-authors, granting the journal the right to publish and distribute the research.

In conclusion, the responsibilities of the corresponding author extend far beyond the preparation of the manuscript. This key figure plays a vital role in facilitating effective communication, ensuring collaboration among co-authors, addressing inquiries from the scientific community, and upholding ethical standards in the publication process. By managing these responsibilities with diligence and integrity, the corresponding author contributes significantly to the successful publication and dissemination of valuable research findings.

I have written articles where the corresponding author plays a key role between the co-authors and journals. Please visit the articles listed below for further details.

• “ 5 Proven Steps to Change Author Email Id in a Published Research Paper”
• “ How to Change Author Name on a Previously Published Research Paper? “
• “ 4 Easy Steps to Withdraw Author Name from a Research Paper “
• “Can I Change My Research Paper Title Before or After Publication in a Research Journal?”

3. Can I Change the Corresponding Author in an Already Published Paper?

Changing the corresponding author in an already published paper is a rare occurrence and typically takes place under exceptional circumstances. While journals generally discourage such changes, some situations may arise where it becomes necessary or unavoidable. One such scenario could be when the originally designated corresponding author is no longer affiliated with the institution or unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances, such as personal reasons, health issues, or career changes.

Several reasons may prompt the need for changing the corresponding author in an already published paper:

• Affiliation Change: If the original corresponding author changes institutions or affiliations, they may no longer have access to the resources or institutional support required to handle post-publication inquiries and administrative responsibilities effectively.
• Unavailability: In some cases, the originally designated corresponding author might become unavailable or unreachable, making it challenging to address post-publication inquiries or fulfill the responsibilities associated with the role.
• Career Progression: The corresponding author might be a graduate student or postdoctoral researcher at the time of publication, and their career might have progressed significantly since then. As they transition to new roles or institutions, they may find it more appropriate to transfer the corresponding authorship to a co-author who can better handle the ongoing responsibilities.
• Personal Reasons: Personal circumstances, such as health issues or family emergencies, may arise, preventing the original corresponding author from continuing their role in managing post-publication matters.

Changing the corresponding author in an already published paper presents several challenges and considerations:

• Journal Policies: Journals typically have specific policies regarding authorship changes post-publication. Some journals may permit changes only under exceptional circumstances, while others may not allow any modifications to the published authorship.
• Consent from Co-Authors: Before making any changes, the consent of all co-authors is vital. The decision to change the corresponding author should be reached through mutual agreement and understanding among all co-authors.
• Maintaining the Paper’s Integrity: Changing the corresponding author should not alter the integrity of the published paper. The research findings, data, and conclusions should remain unchanged.
• Publication Ethics: Any changes must adhere to publication ethics guidelines. Ethical considerations include ensuring that authorship is not manipulated to gain unwarranted credit or minimize accountability.

Changing the corresponding author can have implications on the published paper and its authors:

• Responsibility Transfer: The newly appointed corresponding author assumes responsibility for managing post-publication inquiries, corrections, and updates.
• Credibility and Recognition: Changing the corresponding author does not alter the contributions of the other co-authors. Each author’s contributions and affiliations remain the same.
• Acknowledging the Change: Journals may publish a formal correction notice to acknowledge the change in the corresponding authorship.
• Visibility and Communication: After the change, the newly designated corresponding author becomes the primary point of contact for future communications related to the paper.
• Authorship Order: Changing the corresponding author does not impact the order of authors listed in the published paper. The authorship order should remain consistent with the original publication.

It is crucial to note that changing the corresponding author should be approached with caution and undertaken only when genuinely necessary. Researchers considering such changes should carefully review the policies of the relevant journal, seek input and consent from all co-authors, and ensure that ethical and publication standards are upheld to maintain the integrity of the published work.

4. Corresponding Author vs. Main Author

In a research paper, the corresponding author and the main author are distinct roles, each with specific responsibilities in the publication process.

• The corresponding author serves as the primary point of contact between the research team and the journal or conference where the paper is submitted.
• They handle all communication with the editorial board, reviewers, and readers, and are responsible for managing the submission and review process.
• The corresponding author’s name and contact details are usually provided in the published paper to facilitate post-publication communication.
• The main author, also known as the first author or lead author, is the individual who has made the most significant contribution to the research and writing of the paper.
• They are typically the researcher who conducted the majority of the experiments, gathered and analyzed the data, and played a central role in writing the manuscript.
• The main author’s name appears first in the list of authors and is often considered the primary contributor to the study.

In a multi-author research paper, each author contributes to the study in various ways, and the corresponding author and the main author play critical but distinct roles:

Consider a research paper that presents the findings of a collaborative study on a new potential treatment for a specific medical condition:

• Main Author: Dr. Emily Thompson, a medical researcher with extensive experience in clinical trials and patient care, takes the lead in this study. She designs the clinical trial, collects and analyzes the patient data, and prepares the initial draft of the manuscript.
• Corresponding Author: Prof. Michael Johnson, the senior researcher overseeing the project, is designated as the corresponding author. He provides guidance and expertise throughout the research process, assists in manuscript preparation, and ensures that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version before submission.

In this example, Dr. Emily Thompson’s contributions as the main author are indispensable. Her expertise in clinical trials and patient care is instrumental in the successful execution of the study. She is responsible for the bulk of the research work, making her the primary contributor to the study’s scientific content.

On the other hand, Prof. Michael Johnson’s role as the corresponding author is equally vital. He takes charge of the manuscript’s submission to a reputable medical journal, communicates with the journal’s editorial board, and ensures that all necessary documents are in order. His experience as a seasoned researcher and his network of contacts facilitate a smooth publication process, ultimately allowing the research findings to reach a wider audience.

It is essential to recognize that both the main author and the corresponding author make crucial contributions to the research paper. While the main author’s expertise drives the scientific content, the corresponding author’s organizational skills and communication play a pivotal role in getting the research recognized and published. The collaboration between these roles ensures that valuable research findings can be effectively shared with the scientific community and beyond, contributing to the advancement of knowledge and potential benefits to society.

5. Is the Corresponding Author Always the First Author?

Authorship order in a research paper carries essential information about the relative contributions of the authors to the study. The order of authors serves as a way to acknowledge and attribute their roles in the research process. While the exact conventions for authorship order can vary between disciplines and research groups, certain common principles are often followed:

• First Author: The first author is typically the individual who has made the most substantial contribution to the research project. They are often the one who conducted the majority of the experiments, performed data analysis, and played a primary role in writing the manuscript. In many fields, being the first author is considered prestigious, as it signifies the lead role in the study.
• Last Author: The last author is usually the senior researcher or principal investigator (PI) who oversaw and supervised the entire project. They provide guidance, mentorship, funding, and overall direction to the research. In many cases, the last author is the corresponding author, but this is not always the case.
• Middle Authors: Authors listed between the first and last authors are considered co-authors and have contributed significantly to the research. The order of middle authors might reflect the level of their contributions, but it can also be alphabetical or based on other conventions established within the research group or field.

The corresponding author is not necessarily the first author, although it is a common convention in many research papers. The corresponding author is designated to handle the communication and administrative responsibilities related to the publication process, but this role is distinct from the first author, who is responsible for the primary research and writing efforts.

Let’s consider a study in the field of astronomy, where a team of researchers collaborates on a significant discovery of a new celestial phenomenon:

• First Author: Dr. Sarah Adams, an astrophysicist with expertise in data analysis and simulations, leads the research efforts. She processes and analyzes the astronomical data, develops the simulation models, and is the main contributor to the manuscript writing.
• Last Author and Corresponding Author: Prof. John Smith, the head of the astronomy department and the PI of the project, serves as the last author and corresponding author. He provided funding, guidance, and overall direction for the study. As the corresponding author, he handles manuscript submission, communication with the journal, and coordination with co-authors.
• Middle Authors: The list of middle authors includes other researchers who made significant contributions to the data collection, data analysis, and validation of the findings. The order of these middle authors might reflect their contributions or follow conventions established within the research group.

In this example, Dr. Sarah Adams is the first author due to her significant contributions to the research, leading the data analysis and simulations. On the other hand, Prof. John Smith, as the corresponding author, handles the administrative aspects and communication with the journal. Despite being the corresponding author, Prof. Smith’s role as the last author signifies his seniority and overall guidance in the research project.

Overall, the corresponding author and the first author have distinct roles in a research paper. While the first author is recognized for their primary contributions to the research, the corresponding author takes charge of managing the publication process and acting as the point of contact with the journal. The collaboration between these roles ensures that both the scientific content and the administrative aspects of the research are handled effectively, leading to a successful publication and dissemination of valuable research findings.

6. Co-Corresponding Authors

Can There Be Co-Corresponding Authors in a Research Paper?

There can be co-corresponding authors in a research paper. Co-corresponding authorship is a practice where two or more authors share the responsibilities of the corresponding author. It is becoming increasingly common in collaborative research projects, especially those involving large research teams or multi-institutional studies.

• Shared Responsibilities: Having co-corresponding authors allows for the distribution of administrative responsibilities. Each co-corresponding author can handle specific aspects of the publication process, making it more manageable, particularly for complex or extensive studies.
• Expertise and Representation: Co-corresponding authors may represent different areas of expertise within the research team. For example, one co-corresponding author may have expertise in the experimental aspects of the study, while another may specialize in data analysis or clinical applications. This ensures that the expertise of all relevant team members is adequately represented during the publication process.
• Efficient Communication: With multiple corresponding authors, there is a higher likelihood of prompt responses to journal queries or reviewer comments, as the workload is shared among the co-corresponding authors. This can lead to quicker turnaround times during the peer-review process.
• Inclusivity and Collaboration: Designating multiple corresponding authors fosters a sense of collaboration and inclusivity within the research team. All co-corresponding authors are recognized for their contributions and dedication to the project.
• Potential for Miscommunication: Coordinating between multiple corresponding authors may lead to miscommunication if roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined. It is essential to establish effective communication channels and clarify each co-corresponding author’s tasks.
• Journal Policies and Recognition: Some journals might not permit co-corresponding authors, or they may have specific guidelines regarding this practice. Additionally, listing multiple corresponding authors may affect the visibility and recognition of individual contributions by readers or indexing databases.
• Decision-Making Challenges: Disagreements or differences in opinion among co-corresponding authors may arise, particularly when making critical decisions during the publication process. Resolving such conflicts requires open and respectful communication.

A research team comprised of scientists from different countries collaborates on a groundbreaking study in the field of renewable energy. This comprehensive study involves extensive experimental work, data analysis, and theoretical modelling. Given the scale of the research and the diverse expertise of the team members, the team decides to have two co-corresponding authors to manage the publication process effectively.

• Co-Corresponding Author 1: Dr. Mia Johnson, an expert in experimental physics, oversees the laboratory work and data collection for the study. She is responsible for preparing the manuscript and coordinating with the journal during the submission and peer-review process.
• Co-Corresponding Author 2: Dr. Raj Patel, a computational scientist specializing in numerical simulations, takes charge of data analysis and theoretical modelling for the research. He collaborates with Dr. Johnson in manuscript preparation and handles communication with the journal during revisions and responses to reviewer comments.

In this example, both Dr. Mia Johnson and Dr. Raj Patel share the responsibilities of the corresponding author. Dr. Johnson primarily focuses on the experimental aspects, while Dr. Patel contributes with his expertise in data analysis and simulations. This co-corresponding authorship ensures that both experimental and theoretical aspects of the research are adequately represented, facilitating a smooth and comprehensive publication process.

In conclusion, co-corresponding authors can be designated in research papers to share administrative responsibilities, represent diverse areas of expertise, and promote collaboration within the research team. While there are potential challenges, clarifying roles and maintaining effective communication can make co-corresponding authorship a successful approach in managing the publication process for complex and collaborative research endeavours.

7. Contributing Author vs. Corresponding Author

In a research paper, various authors play distinct roles based on their contributions to the study and their responsibilities in the publication process:

• A contributing author is any individual who has made a meaningful and significant contribution to the research project.
• Their contributions may include data collection, experimentation, data analysis, writing specific sections of the manuscript, providing critical feedback, or offering substantial intellectual input to the study.
• Contributing authors are listed in the byline of the paper, reflecting their involvement in the research and their academic contributions to the study.
• They share ownership of the research findings and are accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the reported work.
• The corresponding author serves as the main point of contact between the research team and the journal or conference where the paper is submitted.
• They are responsible for manuscript submission, communication with the journal’s editorial board and reviewers, and handling post-publication inquiries and comments.
• The corresponding author is designated to manage the administrative aspects of the publication process but may or may not have been the primary contributor to the research itself.
• Their contact information is usually provided in the published paper, allowing readers and other researchers to reach out for additional information or collaborations.

The roles of various authors in a research paper can vary based on their contributions and the nature of the research project:

Let’s consider a study conducted on the biodiversity of a tropical rainforest:

• Contributing Author 1: Dr. Lisa Adams, a botanist, spends months in the rainforest collecting plant specimens and conducting field surveys. Her expertise in identifying plant species is instrumental in determining the botanical diversity of the area. Dr. Adams also contributes significantly to writing the section of the manuscript related to plant diversity and assists in data analysis.
• Contributing Author 2: Dr. Mark Johnson, an entomologist, specializes in insect taxonomy and ecology. He conducts extensive surveys of insects in the rainforest, identifying new species and documenting their ecological roles. Dr. Johnson writes the section of the manuscript focusing on insect diversity and contributes to the discussion of ecological interactions among species.
• Contributing Author 3: Dr. Sophia Chen, a statistical analyst, is responsible for analyzing the large dataset generated by Dr. Adams and Dr. Johnson. She uses advanced statistical methods to determine patterns of biodiversity and provides valuable insights into the ecological relationships among various organisms.
• Corresponding Author: Prof. Michael Lee, the senior researcher overseeing the project, takes on the role of the corresponding author. He guides the research team throughout the study, securing funding, providing overall direction, and facilitating collaboration among the contributing authors. Prof. Lee oversees the manuscript preparation, communicates with the journal, and ensures that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version before submission.

In this example, Dr. Lisa Adams, Dr. Mark Johnson, and Dr. Sophia Chen are contributing authors because they have each made significant and distinct contributions to the research project. They represent different areas of expertise (botany, entomology, and statistics) and have actively participated in data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing.

On the other hand, Prof. Michael Lee, as the corresponding author, manages the publication process and communication with the journal. While he may have contributed intellectually to the study, his primary role lies in facilitating and coordinating the collaborative research effort.

8. Can a Student Be a Corresponding Author?

A student can be a corresponding author in a research paper. There are no strict rules prohibiting students from assuming the corresponding author role. The designation of the corresponding author is typically based on the individual’s ability to fulfill the responsibilities associated with the position, regardless of their academic status.

• Significant Contributions: If a student has played a leading role in conceptualizing and conducting the research, as well as in writing the manuscript, they may be an appropriate choice for the corresponding author. Their contributions and dedication to the project justify their eligibility for this responsibility.
• Learning Opportunity: Assuming the corresponding author role offers students valuable experience in managing the publication process and interacting with journals and reviewers. It provides them with insights into the world of academic publishing and enhances their research and communication skills.
• Recognition and Visibility: Being listed as the corresponding author in a published paper can enhance the student’s visibility within the scientific community. It can also be a positive addition to their academic and professional profile, especially if the research is well-regarded in the field.
• Supervisory Support: Students who take on the corresponding author role often work closely with their supervisors and mentors. This collaboration can provide guidance and support to ensure that the publication process proceeds smoothly.

Let’s consider a scenario where a graduate student, Emily, conducts a research study on the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems. Emily’s project involves extensive fieldwork, data analysis, and developing a comprehensive research manuscript. She dedicates significant effort and time to the study, making substantial contributions to the research project.

Given Emily’s dedication and primary role in the research, her supervisor and co-authors acknowledge her as the corresponding author. Emily takes charge of manuscript preparation, communicating with co-authors, and submitting the research paper to a reputable marine science journal.

Despite being a student, Emily is well-qualified for the corresponding author role due to her contributions and her ability to handle the publication process effectively. The journal recognizes her as the corresponding author, and the research is successfully published.

In this example, Emily’s eligibility as a corresponding author is based on her dedication, contributions, and mentorship and support provided by her supervisor and co-authors. Assuming this responsibility offers Emily a valuable learning opportunity and enhances her reputation as a budding researcher in marine science.

In conclusion, students can indeed be corresponding authors in research papers, provided they have made significant contributions to the study and are capable of managing the publication process. The eligibility for the corresponding author role is not restricted by academic status, but rather by the individual’s ability to fulfil the responsibilities associated with this significant position in the publication process.

Behind each publication lies a dedicated team of authors, each with distinct roles and responsibilities that collectively contribute to the success of the research endeavour. Understanding the significance of various authorship roles is crucial for fostering collaboration, recognizing contributions, and upholding ethical practices in the publication process.

The corresponding author serves as the linchpin that binds the research team with the scientific community. With adept organizational skills and effective communication, they navigate the intricate landscape of manuscript submission, peer review, and post-publication interactions. While often responsible for coordinating the publication process, the corresponding author need not always be the first author or the primary contributor to the research. Their expertise lies in ensuring the paper’s journey from conception to publication is a smooth and fruitful one.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

Popular Publishing articles

• Scopus has already indexed monograph!
• Scientific Route OÜ opens the call for submissions for the collective monograph "Education before the challenges of modernity"
• Submitting a manuscript for indexing a monograph in Scopus
• Indexing a monograph in Scopus! Special conditions for educators in Ukraine
• Collective monograph with indexing Scopus

Comment of the week

Albert Einstein

Theoretical physicist

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.

Navigating Authorship Roles in Research: Lead Author vs. Co-Author

At first glance, the status of a «lead author» would seem to be fairly straightforward. If most of the work of a particular study is done by only one researcher then his name should come first in the citation. However, unless an agreement is reached among all authors defining what «the most work» means, misunderstandings will inevitably ensue and could lead to a conflict of interest. This situation can quickly deteriorate further to even academic misconduct if the list of authors doesn’t accurately reflect the extent of involvement for each author.

Definition of a  « Lead Author »  and  « Co-Author »

The definition of a lead author and co-author are commonly considered as follows:

• Lead Author:  He/She is also called as the first author and is the one who carries out the research as well as writes and edits the manuscript.
• Co-Author:  He/She is the one who collaborates with the lead author and contributes to the work in the manuscript.

Assigning Authorship

One of the most significant issues in involving multiple authors in a research paper is the tendency to not be able to equally attribute each facet of the project to a specific researcher. For example, deference to seniority should not automatically equate to lead authorship status, but very often it does. The second assumption is that having a  supervisor or senior author  listed will improve both recognition and the chances of publication in a prestigious journal.

At the other end, it is often assumed that junior researchers and staff members are grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the team and do not expect to be acknowledged as authors. As they often do much of the legwork for large projects, this assumption is highly disrespectful.

Establishing Boundaries

Operating on assumptions seriously undermines the importance of  correct authorship status  since such a designation carries with it academic, financial, and career implications. If the team has never worked together before and is committed to avoiding conflict over this issue, there are several good sources for general rules or codes of conduct that can be used to establish rules to which everyone can agree to comply. For example, the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors  ( ICMJE ) identifies  four criteria  that should be met to «qualify» for authorship status:

1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;

2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

3) Final approval of the work to be published;

4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Such rules may not help to resolve ego issues where individual team members expect recognition based on what they bring to the team, but by keeping the topic focused on workload and accountability; these rules carry the clear message that authorship is earned not granted.

Avoiding Conflict

No matter how many hierarchical ranks exist in your department, it is wise not to transfer the same bureaucratic headaches to your authorship team. There can be only one «lead author», and the aim should be to recognize the remaining members as «co-authors» who agree, in advance, to what tasks they will each be responsible for. Any issues about the perceived fairness of such designations can then be addressed in advance rather than fighting over performance failure prior to publication.

Source:  https://www.enago.com/academy/difference-between-lead-author-and-co-author/

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

268k Accesses

15 Citations

720 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Similar content being viewed by others

Why, When, Who, What, How, and Where for Trainees Writing Literature Review Articles

Gerry L. Koons, Katja Schenke-Layland & Antonios G. Mikos

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Sascha Kraus, Matthias Breier, … João J. Ferreira

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Oğuzhan Öztürk, Rıdvan Kocaman & Dominik K. Kanbach

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

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

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”

With an increasing number of researchers and graduates chasing publication opportunities under the pressure of “ publish or perish ,” many are settling for participation in multiple author projects as the first step in building a track record of publications. Over time, the trend of multiple authorship has grown from 3–4 authors of a paper to 6 or more. As those numbers grow, the potential for confusion over responsibilities, accountabilities, and entitlements grows in parallel.

The term “multiple authorship” can be misleading, since the degree to which the workload is apportioned can depend on rank, experience, and expertise. Some participants will earn a place on the team solely on the basis of rank, with the hope that their presence will improve the team’s chances of getting accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. Others will be invited because they authored the original study design, provided the dataset for the study, or even provided the institutional research facilities.

Layers of Authorship

When there are only three or four members on a research paper team, the workload should be fairly easy to divide up, with a corresponding designation of one lead author and two or three co-authors . However, when the size of the team increases, a point is reached when co-authors become contributors. The perception of these titles can vary. New researchers who aspire to official authorship status may see the title of “contributor” as a relegation or demotion in rank, but for other, more experienced researchers, it may simply be a pragmatic recognition of the fact that you may have provided valuable resources but didn’t actually contribute to the writing or editing of the research paper.

Academic Misconduct

The danger in opening up another level of authorship is that journals are now given the opportunity to stuff papers with a few extra authors.

Related: Confused about assigning authorship to the right person? Check out this post on authorship now!

If the journal’s conduct has been flagged as being questionable to begin with—charging high article processing fees (APFs) for publication, delivering suspiciously short turnaround times for peer reviews—how far can they be from colluding with editors to add on a few contributors who had nothing to do with the research paper at all?

Contributorship Statements

As the development of larger research teams or collaborative authorship teams continues, the opportunities for new researchers to get published will hopefully increase too. However, the opportunity should never be looked upon as just getting your name added to the list of collaborators because being on that list comes with responsibilities. For example, if the peer review process flags problems with the data, who will be tasked with responding to that? If the reviewers request a partial re-write and re-submission , who will be tasked with delivering on those requests?

The larger the team, the greater the need for a detailed written agreement that allocates clear responsibilities both pre- and post-submission. This would fulfill two important tasks. First, everyone would know what is expected of them and what the consequences would be for not delivering on those expectations. Second, when the paper is accepted for publication, the agreement could be summarized as a contributorship statement , so that readers are given a clear picture of who did what. In addition, as this trend of multiple authorship continues, grant and tenure committees are starting to request clarification of publication claims, and such a statement would help to delineate precisely what you contributed to the paper.

Hello, How to cite the article of Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”? Warm regards

Thank you for sharing your query on our website. Since we are not aware of the writing style format of the research paper concerned, we would suggest you to refer to the following website : https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website . Accordingly you can choose the style, add the article link and create the relevant citation format for the paper. Please note that proper acknowledgement and citation of the reference is necessary to avoid any issues of plagiarism.

Let us know in case of any other queries.

An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your website.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

How Can Researchers Work Towards Equal Authorship

In the past, authorship lacked a clear set of guidelines and sometimes excluded individuals who…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Insights into Assigning Authorship and Contributorship, and Open Access Publishing

ICMJE guidelines on authorship Avoiding authorship dilemma Overview of Open Knowledge Significance of open data…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Ethics

Should First Authors Be Responsible for Scientific Misconduct?

You can also listen to this article as an audio recording. Scientific misconduct is a…

• Global Japanese Webinars

誰を論文の著者や貢献者とするか ― 研究者のためのオーサーシップ基礎知識

著者と貢献者の違い 何人まで著者として記載できるか 責任著者および共著者となれる条件 著者のためのリソース

学术作者和贡献者署名要怎么写

ICMJE 准则 谁有资格被列为作者 作者名单应该要多长 共同作者与第一作者

What You Must Know While Assigning Authorship to Your Manuscript

Authorship and Contributorship in Scientific Publications

Experts’ Take: Giving Proper Credit in Multi-authored Publications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

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

How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone’s Research Contributions Make It into the Paper

Gert helgesson.

1 Stockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Zubin Master

2 Biomedical Ethics Research Program and Center for Regenerative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA

William Bülow

3 Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Associated Data

Not applicable.

While much of the scholarly work on ethics relating to academic authorship examines the fair distribution of authorship credit, none has yet examined situations where a researcher contributes significantly to the project, but whose contributions do not make it into the final manuscript. Such a scenario is commonplace in collaborative research settings in many disciplines and may occur for a number of reasons, such as excluding research in order to provide the paper with a clearer focus, tell a particular story, or exclude negative results that do not fit the hypothesis. Our concern in this paper is less about the reasons for including or excluding data from a paper and more about distributing credit in this type of scenario. In particular, we argue that the notion ‘substantial contribution’, which is part of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, is ambiguous and that we should ask whether it concerns what ends up in the paper or what is a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper. We then argue, based on the principles of fairness, due credit, and ensuring transparency and accountability in research, that the latter interpretation is more plausible from a research ethics point of view. We conclude that the ICMJE and other organizations interested in authorship and publication ethics should consider including guidance on authorship attribution in situations where researchers contribute significantly to the research process leading up to a specific paper, but where their contribution is finally omitted.

Introduction

Research typically proceeds in less predictable ways than we like to acknowledge. While a scientific ideal is that every part of a study is well considered and planned beforehand, and the research process thereafter mainly consists in performing according to protocol, a typical experience from the field is that such description is far from the truth. Planning and execution of plans are rarely that straightforward. To the contrary, many decisions are made along the way regarding both data collection and analysis: new experiments, comparisons, interviews, and surveys may be decided as the work proceeds, and additional analyses may be added to the ones originally decided upon. Sometimes these changes are driven by peer review. Some of the research contributions eventually pass critical scrutiny and make it into the paper, while others for one reason or another end up in the waste bin or are shelved for possible future use.

There may be positive as well as negative things to say about such practice in relation to the philosophy of science and meta science, relating to curiosity and creativity on the one hand and hypothesis testing and reproducibility issues on the other. Furthermore, some of the choices made regarding what results get included in papers may be objectionable from a research ethics perspective, such as excluding ‘negative results’ because they contradict the main results of the paper or are considered unworthy of publication, hence contributing to the positive publication bias (Chalmers et al., 1990 ; Connor, 2008 ; Dirnagl & Lauritzen, 2010 ). Other exclusions may be fully acceptable, based on estimations of relevance and the consideration that you cannot include everything in the paper if it is to be readable.

The present paper does not deal with what exclusions of research results are acceptable or not, but with a related issue, namely how to handle authorship attributions in papers where plans change along the way, so that some of the results derived are not included in the final version of the paper. This topic is a special case of the larger topic of who should be included as authors on research papers, which involves ethical aspects like appropriate allocation of credit in research (and, hence, fairness), transparency and accountability (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009 ). Given the frequency of authorship disagreements (Marušić et al., 2011 ; Nylenna et al., 2014 ; Okonta & Rossouw, 2013 ), this analysis is important also because good authorship practices serve to foster positive team dynamics and collaboration and are less likely to lead to authorship disputes, which could impact interpersonal and professional relationships and possibly lead to subsequent misbehaviors (Smith et al., 2020 ; Tijdink et al., 2016 ).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced the most widely acknowledged authorship recommendations, which serve as guidance for the biomedical sciences among other areas of scholarship (ICMJE, 2019 ). The recommendations provide a set of criteria that are jointly necessary and sufficient in order to determine authorship (see Box ​ Box1). 1 ). While these authorship criteria have met their due share of criticism (Laflin et al. 2005 ; Osborne & Holland, 2009 ; Puljak & Sambunjak, 2000 ; Smith et al. 2014 ), we find them reasonable, although not flawless (see e.g. Helgesson & Eriksson, 2018 ; Helgesson et al 2019 ). We therefore treat the ICMJE criteria as the starting point for our discussion of whether granting authorship to someone can be justified even when that person’s specific contributions do not make it into the final version of the manuscript. However, the problem we have identified, having to do with the first criterion–that authors should have made a ‘substantial contribution’ to the work–is not clearly addressed by the ICMJE recommendations. In fact, the problem is overlooked by most suggestions for how to think about the allocation of authorship in co-researched papers (see e.g., Shamoo & Resnik, 2009 ; Hansson, 2017 ; Moffatt, 2018 ).

ICMJE Authorship recommendations

Hence, the aim of this paper is to determine, in relation to the ICMJE authorship criteria, how authorship should be handled in situations where researchers have contributed substantively to the research and drafting of the manuscript, but the results themselves are not included in the final manuscript. Before we discuss this issue in greater detail, we would like to flesh out the problem by providing a case.

A Case of Omitted Results

To recognize the problem we have in mind, consider the following case: Two senior researchers and three junior researchers work together on a study. One of the senior researchers take the main responsibility for conception and design of the study and assume the role of principal investigator (PI), while the other senior researcher helps substantially with suggestions and input regarding specific analyses, and also provides support in the lab, where the empirical data is obtained. The empirical work is divided among the three junior researchers Ann, Bo, and Choi in such a way that they are individually fully responsible for some part of the design and conducting the lab work, resulting in data collection, analysis and interpretation of results. As times passes, Ann, Bo, and Choi all spend many hours working hard and eventually deliver according to plan. When looking at the results and discussing the study further, all researchers on the team agree on the contents of the paper. It turns out that while the analyses made by Ann and Bo fit well with the final idea of the paper, Choi’s analyses fall outside the scope of the narrative eventually decided upon and are therefore at the end not included. This is where the discussion starts in the group. Should Choi be included as co-author? She will surely do her part in revising the manuscript and approve the final version to satisfy the second and third ICMJE criteria, but did she make a ‘substantial contribution’ to the work under the first criterion of the ICMJE recommendations? Choi has contributed to discussions throughout the life of the project at team meetings and did help in the design of her part of the experiments and conducted those studies, collected and analyzed the data, and helped interpret the results. However, she was unable to contribute to the overall conception and design of the project at this early stage of her career, similar to Ann and Bo. On an honest estimation, it can be concluded that she has not made a substantial contribution to the paper if the excluded results, her main contribution, do not make it into the final manuscript. So what to do?

Before we move on, let us notice that there are several possible reasons for not including Choi’s contribution in the paper. One reason could be that the quality of her work is too low. Another reason could be that her results are relevant but do not support the overall thesis of the paper–they are in this respect so-called negative results. As we have already indicated, omitting negative results might be problematic from a research ethics perspective, especially if the reason for omitting them is that they contradict one’s hypothesis. 1 However, another reason for not including Choi’s contribution could be that the results are taken not to be relevant (or relevant enough) to the paper eventually decided upon, meaning that her results helped shape the final story being told in the paper but were not being reported in the publication. For the sake of argument, our discussion in what follows assumes that the reason for omitting Choi’s contribution is ethically sound and does not constitute a research misbehaviour in its own right.

Substantial Contribution and Intellectual Involvement

As noted in the introduction, the problem we describe concerns the first ICMJE criterion for authorship. This criterion does two things: it tells us the broad categories of contributions that count towards authorship on the byline (conception or design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data), and it tells us the extent of contribution needed, namely that the contribution(s) have to be ‘substantial.’ For the sake of argument, let us assume that Choi’s research contributions would clearly have been substantial enough to grant a position on the paper if her data and analyses had been included in the manuscript. Now if they are not included, does it mean that Choi should not be listed as an author? And if she should, how is this compatible with the idea of a substantial contribution?

We believe that situations like Choi’s reveal that the ‘substantial contribution’ requirement of the ICMJE recommendations is not only vague in terms of what is required for a contribution to be large enough to be substantial (Cutas & Shaw, 2015 ; Laflin et al. 2005 ; Osborne & Holland, 2009 ), but also ambiguous in terms of what specifically counts as a contribution. In particular, we hold that we should distinguish between two interpretations of this criterion, namely whether it concerns a substantial contribution to what ends up in the paper or whether it concerns a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper . While Choi does not qualify as an author in the former sense, she might do so if we accept the latter interpretation of the substantial contribution criterion. The question remains which of the two interpretations of ‘substantial contribution’ is the most plausible one.

To be certain, making a substantial contribution is not enough to qualify for authorship according to the ICMJE criteria. Critical revision and final approval of the manuscript outlined in the second and third ICMJE criteria is needed as well. The critical revision requires intellectual involvement in the paper under production. Hence, intellectual involvement in the research at hand is part of the ICMJE authorship requirements (Helgesson, 2015 ).

Before returning to our case, let us first present and consider another one in which the main point is to clearly show that one might make a substantial contribution to the research of a paper without contributing to what ends up in the paper. Assume that a group is writing a paper on research methods for accomplishing X in the research field of Z . They proceed by examining all existing methods mentioned in the literature potentially relevant for the specific purpose at hand, dividing the work among them so that each researcher involved analyzes the same number of methods each. The results from the analyses of the methods found to work are described at some length in the final paper, while failing methods are merely mentioned (although they are as completely documented by the research group). Since it is not known beforehand which methods will work and which ones will not, each analysis will be equally relevant to the fulfillment of the aim of the paper–to clarify the best methods to accomplish X . If the research contribution is substantial, and other authorship criteria are fulfilled, all researchers should be included as co-authors of the paper irrespective of whether their method is presented in the manuscript or not. Hence, there is a case to be made that substantial research contributions sometimes should count towards authorship even if they are not represented equally in the final paper.

Fairness, Transparency and Accountability

As previously detailed, we believe that cases like Choi’s reveal an ambiguity concerning the notion of ‘substantial contribution.’ It might be understood as saying that what is required is either a substantial contribution to what ends up in the paper or a substantial contribution to the research leading up to the paper. If the first interpretation is correct, then Choi should be excluded from authorship, despite the work and effort that she has put into this collaborative work. If Choi ought to be included in the paper, which we think she should, this is because it is enough, with respect to the first authorship criterion, that she has contributed in a substantial and relevant way to the research leading up to the paper, even if her specific empirical contributions did not end up in the paper. We will therefore defend this interpretation of the substantial contribution requirement of the ICMJE recommendations.

Generally, there are two sets of reasons for caring about how authorship is handled when a researcher makes a substantial contribution that is not reported in the manuscript. First, it is a matter of transparency and accountability about the research process: what happened and who were involved? From this perspective, it is misleading if people who were deeply involved in the work are not described in the paper. Also for reasons of accountability, those responsible for the work should be identifiable to others. Admittedly, both of these aspects could be fulfilled by some other means than that of attribution of authorship, such as a sufficiently detailed description of everyone’s contributions, including those not included as authors. But with present practices, including someone as co-author or merely listing that person in the contributor list or acknowledgements communicates two quite different messages about the person’s contribution and its relative importance. Our argument here for the interpretation that what counts as ground for co-authorship is a substantial contribution to the research leading to the paper is that excluding Choi would be misleading about her role in the project, hence not fulfilling the need for transparency and accountability.

Second, authorship is a matter of due scientific credit and fairness, which to our mind provides a strong reason for including Choi. In particular, our argument for the interpretation that what counts is a substantial contribution to the research leading to the paper is that excluding Choi seems unfair. After all, Choi has contributed as much to the research leading to the paper as her colleagues. Admittedly, the aim of the paper shifted, or took a form that made Choi’s contribution less relevant to what was reported in the paper, but not less relevant to the end product leading to the research publication. Also, we should note that this interpretation clearly ties Choi’s claim to authorship to the good work she has done rather than to the results being reported only. In contrast, if what is required is a substantial contribution to the research presented in the paper, then it seems that whether any of the junior researchers end up in the authorship byline will be, to some degree, a matter of luck , since neither an initial agreement or great efforts along the way is sufficient. This too seems unfair. Contributing with a considerable amount of good work and then not receiving authorship because of a change of plans seems unfair in a vein similar to misuse of the ICMJE authorship criteria by letting people contribute substantially to the work, then not offer them the opportunity to revise, and finally not include them as authors since they do not fulfill all criteria (ICMJE, 2019 ).

Counter Arguments

There are several possible counterarguments to our thesis that should be addressed. First, it might be argued that Choi’s contribution is rather general in its nature, and hence should not count towards authorship. After all, authorship is not about general research contributions, such as having contributed substantially to a large research application providing financial support for the production of many papers (reaching a level of detail that the application did not), but contributions to the specific paper (Smith & Master, 2017 ). Similarly, being a member of the research group does not mean that one should be included as co-author on every paper produced by the group. Instead, you need to contribute substantially to every paper in order to be listed as author. However, one may agree with the general thrust of this argument without agreeing that it works as an argument against including Choi. That is because it is an open question what should be meant by ‘contributions to the specific paper’–is it what the final version of the paper contains or is it the work specifically concerning and leading up to that paper? It seems to us that the better understanding of ‘research contribution’ is the work and intellectual engagement contributed in the context of a study or project around a specified research aim and/or a set of specified research questions, rather than what of that work was eventually included in the paper–as long as the work, as it was carried out, was perceived by the research group as relevant to what they were doing.

Second, one might ask why it would not be enough if Choi’s contribution were recognized through an acknowledgement, especially if it contains a clear statement of her contribution. Important contributions that do not qualify for authorship are often handled that way, so why shouldn’t we think that it is enough in this case? There are two connected responses to this inquiry. First, as already argued, Choi has made contributions qualifying her for authorship. Leaving her out would therefore be misleading in the sense that it would give a false impression about the relative value of her contribution to the research. Second, it would be utterly unfair to grant her an acknowledgement if her colleagues, making contributions of equal importance (according to our reasoning above), are included as authors. Again, as discussed above, allocation of authorship concerns transparency and accountability on the one hand, and credit and fairness on the other. Acknowledgements contribute to transparency, but are useless from a career perspective in most, if not all, research areas, hence leaving Choi with an inappropriate credit for her work. 2

Third, there is a complication with our interpretation of the substantial contribution requirement that we may call the multiplicity problem . Imagine that the overall thrust of our argument was followed by the research group and that Choi was included as co-author in the paper based on her substantial contributions to the work with the paper even though her work was not presented in the paper. Further imagine that later on, the senior researchers find it a good idea to include the previously excluded work by Choi in another paper where it becomes more relevant. The work then included is indeed substantial, which provides an argument why Choi should be included as co-author also in this second paper. But doesn’t this amount to an unfair form of double counting? In response, we think that it might be acceptable to include Choi as co-author on both papers, insofar as she fulfills the following two conditions: the contribution under the first criterion has to be different in the two papers (which is not the same thing as saying that the contribution has to concern different data sets), and the other ICMJE authorship criteria need to be fulfilled in relation to the second paper as well. Admittedly, Choi was not part of the research process, and perhaps not intellectually involved in the questions particularly addressed in this second paper, at an early stage. But once included with her empirical contribution (originally omitted and hence different from her contribution to the first paper), she could engage in the larger questions of this second paper and could contribute intellectually as well. For example, she could participate in the process of revising versions of the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, as put in the second criterion of the ICMJE authorship criteria. If so, then it seems right that she is included as an author also in the second paper since she fulfils criteria 1–4 in relation to that paper. 3

But then there seems to be a further complication with our account that we might call the backfire problem (which is a counter argument to our response to the multiplicity problem). Again, assume that Choi was included as an author on the first paper where her work was not presented in the paper itself, but that the work has also begun with the second paper based on Choi’s contribution. Ann and Bo now enter the scene and ask why they are not included in the second paper–should they be? After all, if Choi ought to be included as an author on the first paper, on the basis that her work with the omitted empirical contribution was an important part of the research process leading up to the first paper, then doesn’t this suggest that Ann and Bo can raise similar legitimate demands on being included as authors on the second paper? In response, we suggest that the answer can certainly not be a general ‘Yes,’ but that their inclusion in the second paper is justifiable if they were sufficiently involved in the second paper to be correctly described as having contributed substantially to the process leading up to that specific paper. For example, the second paper might be a natural follow-up of the first paper, covering further issues already considered while they were working on the first paper. 4 However, it all hinges on whether Ann and Bo contributed substantially, in the sense we have defended in the above.

Before concluding we should make two important remarks. First, our arguments in response to the multiplicity problem has important implications beyond the case that we are focusing on here. For example, when a biomedical researcher builds a new reagent and publishes it, the original creator does not (or at least should not) receive authorship recognition each and every time the reagent is shared and used by other scientists in subsequent studies. The reason for this, or so we would argue, is that merely providing certain substances or data is not enough to qualify as an author. What is important is rather that one has contributed substantially in the research process leading up to the paper. However, allowing people to use one’s innovation over and over does not guarantee the type of involvement required for authorship in a specific paper. Second, the focus of this paper has only been on authorship attribution, but cases like the one we discuss here also raise issues about authorship order, which is a contentious area with as yet no uniform policy or practice which guides researchers (Helgesson & Eriksson, 2019 ; Smith & Master, 2017 ). Addressing this issue is, however, beyond the scope of this paper.

Concluding Remarks

In this paper we have argued that authorship should be attributed to those who have made a substantial contribution to the specific research leading up to the publication, even if their particular contribution is not reported in the paper. Based on the principle of fairness and giving credit where credit is due, researchers who make significant contributions should be given authorship credit even if their contribution is not included in the final manuscript. We have argued that this practice is aligned with the most plausible interpretation of the first criterion of the ICMJE recommendations, and thus researchers should be afforded the opportunity to participate in fulfilling subsequent criteria including drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approving the final version of the paper, and agreeing to be accountable for the research. Based on our analysis, we suggest that ICMJE and others interested in authorship and publication ethics need to revise their proposals regarding authorship allocation for the sake of clarity.

As a suggestion for future research, further conceptual and empirical work in this area should examine and consider situations where substantive but excluded contributions deserve or not deserve authorship credit. While several studies examine gift authorship (e.g., Sauermann & Haeussler, 2017 ; Wislar et al 2011 ), less has been done to assess the nature and frequency of authorship exclusion, which is likely to be significant and affect those with less power in academic science (Cesi and Williams 2011; NASEM 2017).

Acknowledgements

ZM’s involvement in this research project was supported by CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002377 from the National Cancer for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS).

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. See Acknowledgements.

Availability of data and material

Code availability, declarations.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

1 There is much more to be said here. The handling of negative results has been discussed extensively in the research ethics literature, mainly in relation to selection bias when it comes to what studies get published and not. There are ethical issues involved here, relating to reasons for not publishing, such as researchers being misleading by withholding results, wasted resources, and introduction of bias into meta-analyses. The tendency to favor positive results is systemic (Chalmers, 1990 ; Duyx et al., 2017 ; Dwan et al., 2008 ; Fanelli, 2012 ; Song et al., 2000 ). Addressing these sorts of issues is beyond the scope of this paper, however, as our focus is to analyze the ethics of who should be included as authors in cases where not all work done has explicit impact on what ends up in print.

2 The fact that acknowledgements do not carry any weight from a career perspective might be a reason for ditching both acknowledgements and traditional author lists in favour of more detailed contributorship statements at the beginning of academic papers. Such a system would at best not only be more transparent, but also more accurate when it comes to the allocation of academic credit. That said, our argument here largely applies to the present situation, in which authorship is the norm.

3 We admit that our solution to the multiplicity problem still leaves open for disputes over authorship. After all, researchers might still disagree whether a particular contribution is sufficiently different from another one. That said, we still believe that what we say in response to the multiplicity problem is valid and should be adopted as a general starting point for how to handle this kind of disputes. Thus, we suggest that the principle is valid, even if the application of the principle can still be debated in individual cases.

4 We want to underline that we do not suggest that so-called salami-slicing should be acceptable. However, you do not get salami slicing just because you make more than one paper out of a data set. Salami slicing is if you separate your data into several papers merely in order to get more papers, not because it is justified for scientific considerations, such as making the content comprehensible and the story sufficiently clear for the reader to follow (not to mention managing limitations of space).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990; 263 (10):1392–1395. doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100104016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalmers I. Under reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990; 263 :1405–1408. doi: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100121018. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor, J.T. (2008). Positive reasons for publishing negative findings. American Journal of Gastroenterology , Sep;103(9), 2181–2183. [ PubMed ]
• Cutas D, Shaw D. Writers blocked: On the wrongs of research co-authorship and some possible strategies for improvement. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015; 21 (5):1315–1329. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9606-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirnagl U, Lauritzen M. Fighting publication bias: introducing the Negative Results section. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. 2010; 30 :1263–1264. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2010.51. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duyx B, Urlings MJE, Swaen GHM, Bouter LM, Zeegers MP. Scientific citations favor positive results: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017; 88 :92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3 (8):e3801. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012; 90 :891–904. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansson SO. Who should be author? Theoria. 2017; 83 :99–102. doi: 10.1111/theo.12116. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helgesson G. Scientific authorship and intellectual involvement in the research – should they coincide? Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy. 2015; 18 (2):171–175. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9585-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helgesson G, Bülow W, Eriksson S, Godskesen T. Should the deceased be listed as authors? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019; 45 (5):331–338. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105304. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helgesson G, Eriksson S. Authorship order. Learned Publishing. 2019; 32 (2):106–112. doi: 10.1002/leap.1191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Helgesson G, Eriksson S. Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility! Learned Publishing. 2018; 31 (3):267–269. doi: 10.1002/leap.1161. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Accessed 2 Oct, 2020 at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ [ PubMed ]
• Laflin MT, Glover ED, McDermott RJ. Publication ethics: An examination of authorship practices. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2005; 29 :579–587. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.29.6.12. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6 (9):e23477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023477. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moffatt B. Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice. Accountability in Research: policies and quality assurance. 2018; 25 (4):199–211. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1437347. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Academy N, of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press; 2017. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nylenna M, Fagerbakk F, Kierulf P. Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics. 2014; 15 (1):53. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okonta P, Rossouw T. Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics. 2013; 13 (3):149–157. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne JW, Holland A. What is authorship?, and what should it be A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation. 2009 doi: 10.7275/25pe-ba85. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puljak L, Sambunjak D. Can authorship be denied for contract work? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2000; 26 :1031–1037. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00173-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science . Advances. 2017; 3 (11):e1700404. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamoo AE, Resnik DB. Responsible conduct of research. 2. Oxford University Press: Oxford; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith E, Williams-Jones B. Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2012; 18 (2):199–212. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith E, Hunt M, Master Z. Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries. BMC Medical Ethics. 2014; 15 :42. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith E, Master Z. Best practices to order authors in multi/interdisciplinary health science research publications. Accountability in Research: policies and quality assurance. 2017; 24 (4):243–267. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Paul-Hus A, et al. Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2020; 26 (4):1967–1993. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Song F, Eastwood A, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton A. Publication and related biases: a review. Health Technology and Assessment. 2000; 4 (10):1–115. doi: 10.3310/hta4100. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tijdink JK, Schipper K, Bouter LM, Maclaine Pont P, de Jonge J, Smulders YM. How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. British Medical Journal Open. 2016; 6 (2):e008681. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wislar J, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2011; 343 :d6128. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6128. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

• Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
• Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
• Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
• Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
• Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
• Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
• Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
• Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
• Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

• How often do you use social media per day?
• Less than 30 minutes
• 30 minutes to 1 hour
• 1 to 2 hours
• 2 to 4 hours
• More than 4 hours
• Which social media platforms do you use?
• Others (Please specify)
• How often do you experience the following on social media?
• Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
• Cyberbullying
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
• Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
• Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
• Very positive
• Somewhat positive
• Somewhat negative
• Very negative
• In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Social comparison
• In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Education on healthy social media use
• Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
• Social media detox programs
• Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
• Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
• Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

• For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
• For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
• To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

• To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
• To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
• To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
• To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

• Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
• Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
• Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
• Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
• Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

• Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
• Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
• Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
• Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
• Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

• Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
• Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
• Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
• Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
• Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
• Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• News & Media
• Chemical Biology
• Computational Biology
• Ecosystem Science
• Cancer Biology
• Exposure Science & Pathogen Biology
• Metabolic Inflammatory Diseases
• Advanced Metabolomics
• Mass Spectrometry-Based Measurement Technologies
• Spatial and Single-Cell Proteomics
• Structural Biology
• Biofuels & Bioproducts
• Human Microbiome
• Soil Microbiome
• Synthetic Biology
• Computational Chemistry
• Chemical Separations
• Chemical Physics
• Atmospheric Aerosols
• Human-Earth System Interactions
• Modeling Earth Systems
• Coastal Science
• Plant Science
• Subsurface Science
• Terrestrial Aquatics
• Materials in Extreme Environments
• Precision Materials by Design
• Science of Interfaces
• Friction Stir Welding & Processing
• Dark Matter
• Flavor Physics
• Fusion Energy Science
• Neutrino Physics
• Quantum Information Sciences
• Emergency Response
• AGM Program
• Tools and Capabilities
• Grid Architecture
• Grid Cybersecurity
• Grid Energy Storage
• Earth System Modeling
• Energy System Modeling
• Transmission
• Distribution
• Appliance and Equipment Standards
• Building Energy Codes
• Advanced Building Controls
• Advanced Lighting
• Building-Grid Integration
• Building and Grid Modeling
• Commercial Buildings
• Federal Performance Optimization
• Resilience and Security
• Grid Resilience and Decarbonization
• Building America Solution Center
• Energy Efficient Technology Integration
• Home Energy Score
• Electrochemical Energy Storage
• Flexible Loads and Generation
• Grid Integration, Controls, and Architecture
• Regulation, Policy, and Valuation
• Science Supporting Energy Storage
• Chemical Energy Storage
• Waste Processing
• Radiation Measurement
• Environmental Remediation
• Subsurface Energy Systems
• Carbon Capture
• Carbon Storage
• Carbon Utilization
• Advanced Hydrocarbon Conversion
• Fuel Cycle Research
• Advanced Reactors
• Reactor Operations
• Reactor Licensing
• Solar Energy
• Wind Resource Characterization
• Wildlife and Wind
• Community Values and Ocean Co-Use
• Wind Systems Integration
• Wind Data Management
• Distributed Wind
• Energy Equity & Health
• Environmental Monitoring for Marine Energy
• Marine Biofouling and Corrosion
• Marine Energy Resource Characterization
• Testing for Marine Energy
• The Blue Economy
• Environmental Performance of Hydropower
• Hydropower Cybersecurity and Digitalization
• Hydropower and the Electric Grid
• Materials Science for Hydropower
• Pumped Storage Hydropower
• Water + Hydropower Planning
• Grid Integration of Renewable Energy
• Geothermal Energy
• Algal Biofuels
• Aviation Biofuels
• Waste-to-Energy and Products
• Hydrogen & Fuel Cells
• Emission Control
• Energy-Efficient Mobility Systems
• Lightweight Materials
• Vehicle Electrification
• Vehicle Grid Integration
• Contraband Detection
• Pathogen Science & Detection
• Explosives Detection
• Threat-Agnostic Biodefense
• Discovery and Insight
• Proactive Defense
• Trusted Systems
• Nuclear Material Science
• Radiological & Nuclear Detection
• Nuclear Forensics
• Ultra-Sensitive Nuclear Measurements
• Nuclear Explosion Monitoring
• Global Nuclear & Radiological Security
• Disaster Recovery
• Global Collaborations
• Legislative and Regulatory Analysis
• Technical Training
• Additive Manufacturing
• Deployed Technologies
• Rapid Prototyping
• Systems Engineering
• 5G Security
• RF Signal Detection & Exploitation
• Climate Security
• Internet of Things
• Maritime Security
• Artificial Intelligence
• Graph and Data Analytics
• Software Engineering
• Computational Mathematics & Statistics
• High-Performance Computing
• Visual Analytics
• Lab Objectives
• Publications & Reports
• Featured Research
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility
• Lab Leadership
• Lab Fellows
• Staff Accomplishments
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Post-graduate Students
• University Faculty
• University Partnerships
• K-12 Educators and Students
• STEM Workforce Development
• STEM Outreach
• Meet the Team
• Internships
• Regional Impact
• Philanthropy
• Volunteering
• Available Technologies
• Industry Partnerships
• Licensing & Technology Transfer
• Entrepreneurial Leave
• Atmospheric Radiation Measurement User Facility
• Electricity Infrastructure Operations Center
• Energy Sciences Center
• Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory
• Grid Storage Launchpad
• Institute for Integrated Catalysis
• Interdiction Technology and Integration Laboratory
• PNNL Portland Research Center
• PNNL Seattle Research Center
• PNNL-Sequim (Marine and Coastal Research)
• Radiochemical Processing Laboratory
• Shallow Underground Laboratory

Gokul Iyer, Others From PNNL, Honored for Climate Paper

The paper, published in Science, examined nations’ pledges to prevent global warming

PNNL research scientist Gokul Iyer was co-lead author of a paper published in Science that has been honored with a Frontiers Planet Prize award.

(Photo by Andrea Starr | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

Gokul Iyer, a research scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), was co-lead author of a paper that was named National Champion of China within the Frontiers Planet Prize . Yang Ou, a former PNNL scientist, was the lead author of the paper. The global competition affiliated with the International Science Council seeks scientific solutions to stabilize the planet’s ecosystem and supports the scaling-up of the most promising strategies. The paper assessed the impact of pledges of more than 100 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The award and winners were announced April 22 to coincide with Earth Day. The paper was published in November 2021 in Science , “Can updated climate pledges limit warming well below 2°C?”

Iyer is an Earth scientist and team leader at the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland. Iyer and other JGCRI scientists explore interactions between human and Earth systems so decision makers can make informed choices about a wide range of challenges, from decarbonization strategies to meeting emissions goals. 

The study found that the revised and new commitments made by nations in 2021 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could chart a course where limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and under within this century is now significantly more likely. However, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees—the aspirational goal of the Paris Agreement—remains out of reach. The original pledges were made as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Ou , now an assistant professor at Peking University, was the paper’s lead author. Haewon McJeon, the paper’s corresponding author, is on leave from PNNL while working as a visiting professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Current PNNL scientists Jae Edmonds , Matthew Binsted , Pralit Patel , and Stephanie Waldhoff  contributed to this influential study. Allen Fawcett ,   who was formerly at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is now JGCRI’s Division Director, also contributed to the study. Other contributors include Sha Yu, a former PNNL scientist, and Nathan Hultman and Ryna Cui from the University of Maryland and PNNL joint appointees, along with researchers from other national and international organizations.

“This recognition is a demonstration of the global impact of JGCRI’s strong capabilities in multisector, human-Earth system modeling,” said Iyer. Iyer and a similar team of authors have published a series of high-impact papers on this and related topics since 2015 (see for example, this and this ). Iyer and team also wrote a commentary in 2023 that outlines three areas that countries could prioritize to further increase the chances of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Ou initiated the application that led to final selection by the Jury of 100 of the Frontiers Planet Prize committee. Ou received the endorsement from a host institute—Peking University—and an official recommendation by the China Geophysical Society. The paper is now among several that are being considered for an International Champions prize, also presented by the Frontiers Planet Prize committee.

The national champions prizes will be formally presented at an awards ceremony taking place June 25–28 in Villars-sur-Ollon, Switzerland.

Published: April 22, 2024

Research topics

World-first “Cybercrime Index” ranks countries by cybercrime threat level

Following three years of intensive research, an international team of researchers have compiled the first ever ‘World Cybercrime Index’, which identifies the globe’s key cybercrime hotspots by ranking the most significant sources of cybercrime at a national level.

The Index, published today in the journal PLOS ONE , shows that a relatively small number of countries house the greatest cybercriminal threat. Russia tops the list, followed by Ukraine, China, the USA, Nigeria, and Romania. The UK comes in at number eight.

‘The research that underpins the Index will help remove the veil of anonymity around cybercriminal offenders, and we hope that it will aid the fight against the growing threat of profit-driven cybercrime,’ Dr Bruce said.

‘We now have a deeper understanding of the geography of cybercrime, and how different countries specialise in different types of cybercrime.’

‘By continuing to collect this data, we’ll be able to monitor the emergence of any new hotspots and it is possible early interventions could be made in at-risk countries before a serious cybercrime problem even develops.’

The data that underpins the Index was gathered through a survey of 92 leading cybercrime experts from around the world who are involved in cybercrime intelligence gathering and investigations. The survey asked the experts to consider five major categories of cybercrime*, nominate the countries that they consider to be the most significant sources of each of these types of cybercrime, and then rank each country according to the impact, professionalism, and technical skill of its cybercriminals.

Co-author Associate Professor Jonathan Lusthaus , from the University of Oxford’s Department of Sociology and Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, said cybercrime has largely been an invisible phenomenon because offenders often mask their physical locations by hiding behind fake profiles and technical protections.

'Due to the illicit and anonymous nature of their activities, cybercriminals cannot be easily accessed or reliably surveyed. They are actively hiding. If you try to use technical data to map their location, you will also fail, as cybercriminals bounce their attacks around internet infrastructure across the world. The best means we have to draw a picture of where these offenders are actually located is to survey those whose job it is to track these people,' Dr Lusthaus said.

Figuring out why some countries are cybercrime hotspots, and others aren't, is the next stage of the research. There are existing theories about why some countries have become hubs of cybercriminal activity - for example, that a technically skilled workforce with few employment opportunities may turn to illicit activity to make ends meet - which we'll be able to test against our global data set. Dr Miranda Bruce  Department of Sociology, University of Oxford and UNSW Canberra   

Co-author of the study, Professor Federico Varese from Sciences Po in France, said the World Cybercrime Index is the first step in a broader aim to understand the local dimensions of cybercrime production across the world.

‘We are hoping to expand the study so that we can determine whether national characteristics like educational attainment, internet penetration, GDP, or levels of corruption are associated with cybercrime. Many people think that cybercrime is global and fluid, but this study supports the view that, much like forms of organised crime, it is embedded within particular contexts,’ Professor Varese said.

The World Cybercrime Index has been developed as a joint partnership between the University of Oxford and UNSW and has also been funded by CRIMGOV , a European Union-supported project based at the University of Oxford and Sciences Po. The other co-authors of the study include Professor Ridhi Kashyap from the University of Oxford and Professor Nigel Phair from Monash University.

The study ‘Mapping the global geography of cybercrime with the World Cybercrime Index’ has been published in the journal PLOS ONE .

*The five major categories of cybercrime assessed by the study were:

1.   Technical products/services (e.g. malware coding, botnet access, access to compromised systems, tool production).

2.   Attacks and extortion (e.g. denial-of-service attacks, ransomware).

3.   Data/identity theft (e.g. hacking, phishing, account compromises, credit card comprises).

4.   Scams (e.g. advance fee fraud, business email compromise, online auction fraud).

5.   Cashing out/money laundering (e.g. credit card fraud, money mules, illicit virtual currency platforms).

DISCOVER MORE

• Support Oxford's research
• Partner with Oxford on research
• Study at Oxford
• Research jobs at Oxford

You can view all news or browse by category

To find life in the universe, look to deadly Venus

Earth-like but incapable of hosting life.

Despite surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead, lava-spewing volcanoes, and puffy clouds of sulfuric acid, uninhabitable Venus offers vital lessons about the potential for life on other planets, a new paper argues.

"We often assume that Earth is the model of habitability, but if you consider this planet in isolation, we don't know where the boundaries and limitations are," said UC Riverside astrophysicist and paper first author Stephen Kane. "Venus gives us that."

Published today in the journal Nature Astronomy, the paper compiles much of the known information about Earth and Venus. It also describes Venus as an anchor point from which scientists can better understand the conditions that preclude life on planets around other stars.

Though it also features a pressure cooker-like atmosphere that would instantly flatten a human, Earth and Venus share some similarities. They have roughly the same mass and radius. Given the proximity to that planet, it's natural to wonder why Earth turned out so differently.

Many scientists assume that insolation flux, the amount of energy Venus receives from the sun, caused a runaway greenhouse situation that ruined the planet.

"If you consider the solar energy received by Earth as 100%, Venus collects 191%. A lot of people think that's why Venus turned out differently," Kane said. "But hold on a second. Venus doesn't have a moon, which is what gives Earth things like ocean tides and influenced the amount of water here."

In addition to some of the known differences, more NASA missions to Venus would help clear up some of the unknowns. Scientists don't know the size of its core, how it got to its present, relatively slow rotation rate, how its magnetic field changed over time, or anything about the chemistry of the lower atmosphere.

"Venus doesn't have a detectable magnetic field. That could be related to the size of its core," Kane said. "Core size also give us information about how a planet cools itself. Earth has a mantle circulating heat from its core. We don't know what's happening inside Venus."

A terrestrial planet's interior also influences its atmosphere. That is the case on Earth, where our atmosphere is largely the result of volcanic outgassing.

NASA does have twin missions to Venus planned for the end of this decade, and Kane is assisting with both of them. The DAVINCI mission will probe the acid-filled atmosphere to measure noble gases and other chemical elements.

"DAVINCI will measure the atmosphere all the way from the top to the bottom. That will really help us build new climate models and predict these kinds of atmospheres elsewhere, including on Earth, as we keep increasing the amount of CO2," Kane said.

The VERITAS mission, led by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, won't land on the surface but it will allow scientists to create detailed 3D landscape reconstructions, revealing whether the planet has active plate tectonics or volcanoes.

"Currently, our maps of the planet are very incomplete. It's very different to understand how active the surface is, versus how it may have changed through time. We need both kinds of information," Kane said.

Ultimately, the paper advocates for missions like these to Venus for two main reasons. One is the ability, with better data, to use Venus to ensure inferences about life on farther-flung planets are correct.

"The sobering part of the search for life elsewhere in the universe is that we're never going to have in situ data for an exoplanet. We aren't going there, landing, or taking direct measurements of them," Kane said.

"If we think another planet has life on the surface, we might not ever know we're wrong, and we'd be dreaming about a planet with life that doesn't have it. We are only going to get that right by properly understanding the Earth-size planets we can visit, and Venus gives us that chance."

The other reason to research Venus is that it offers a preview of what Earth's future could look like.

"One of the main reasons to study Venus is because of our sacred duties as caretakers of this planet, to preserve its future. My hope is that through studying the processes that produced present-day Venus, especially if Venus had a more temperate past that's now devastated, there are lessons there for us. It can happen to us. It's a question of how and when," Kane said.

• Solar System
• Extrasolar Planets
• Space Missions
• Kuiper Belt
• Planetary habitability
• Solar system
• Extrasolar planet
• Transit of Venus
• Blue supergiant star

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of California - Riverside . Original written by Jules Bernstein. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Stephen R. Kane, Paul K. Byrne. Venus as an Anchor Point for Planetary Habitability . Submitted to arXiv , 2024 DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08830

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• This Alloy Is Kinky
• Giant Galactic Explosion: Galaxy Pollution
• Flare Erupting Around a Black Hole
• Two Species Interbreeding Created New Butterfly
• Warming Antarctic Deep-Sea and Sea Level Rise
• Octopus Inspires New Suction Mechanism for ...
• Cities Sinking: Urban Populations at Risk
• Puzzle Solved About Ancient Galaxy
• How 3D Printers Can Give Robots a Soft Touch
• Combo of Multiple Health Stressors Harming Bees

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 22.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Using ChatGPT-4 to Create Structured Medical Notes From Audio Recordings of Physician-Patient Encounters: Comparative Study

Authors of this article:

There are no citations yet available for this article according to Crossref .

Facility for Rare Isotope Beams

At michigan state university, frib researchers lead team to merge nuclear physics experiments and astronomical observations to advance equation-of-state research, world-class particle-accelerator facilities and recent advances in neutron-star observation give physicists a new toolkit for describing nuclear interactions at a wide range of densities..

For most stars, neutron stars and black holes are their final resting places. When a supergiant star runs out of fuel, it expands and then rapidly collapses on itself. This act creates a neutron star—an object denser than our sun crammed into a space 13 to  18 miles wide. In such a heavily condensed stellar environment, most electrons combine with protons to make neutrons, resulting in a dense ball of matter consisting mainly of neutrons. Researchers try to understand the forces that control this process by creating dense matter in the laboratory through colliding neutron-rich nuclei and taking detailed measurements.

A research team—led by William Lynch and Betty Tsang at FRIB—is focused on learning about neutrons in dense environments. Lynch, Tsang, and their collaborators used 20 years of experimental data from accelerator facilities and neutron-star observations to understand how particles interact in nuclear matter under a wide range of densities and pressures. The team wanted to determine how the ratio of neutrons to protons influences nuclear forces in a system. The team recently published its findings in Nature Astronomy .

“In nuclear physics, we are often confined to studying small systems, but we know exactly what particles are in our nuclear systems. Stars provide us an unbelievable opportunity, because they are large systems where nuclear physics plays a vital role, but we do not know for sure what particles are in their interiors,” said Lynch, professor of nuclear physics at FRIB and in the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Physics and Astronomy. “They are interesting because the density varies greatly within such large systems.  Nuclear forces play a dominant role within them, yet we know comparatively little about that role.” 

When a star with a mass that is 20-30 times that of the sun exhausts its fuel, it cools, collapses, and explodes in a supernova. After this explosion, only the matter in the deepest part of the star’s interior coalesces to form a neutron star. This neutron star has no fuel to burn and over time, it radiates its remaining heat into the surrounding space. Scientists expect that matter in the outer core of a cold neutron star is roughly similar to the matter in atomic nuclei but with three differences: neutron stars are much larger, they are denser in their interiors, and a larger fraction of their nucleons are neutrons. Deep within the inner core of a neutron star, the composition of neutron star matter remains a mystery. 

  “If experiments could provide more guidance about the forces that act in their interiors, we could make better predictions of their interior composition and of phase transitions within them. Neutron stars present a great research opportunity to combine these disciplines,” said Lynch.

Accelerator facilities like FRIB help physicists study how subatomic particles interact under exotic conditions that are more common in neutron stars. When researchers compare these experiments to neutron-star observations, they can calculate the equation of state (EOS) of particles interacting in low-temperature, dense environments. The EOS describes matter in specific conditions, and how its properties change with density. Solving EOS for a wide range of settings helps researchers understand the strong nuclear force’s effects within dense objects, like neutron stars, in the cosmos. It also helps us learn more about neutron stars as they cool.

“This is the first time that we pulled together such a wealth of experimental data to explain the equation of state under these conditions, and this is important,” said Tsang, professor of nuclear science at FRIB. “Previous efforts have used theory to explain the low-density and low-energy end of nuclear matter. We wanted to use all the data we had available to us from our previous experiences with accelerators to obtain a comprehensive equation of state.”   

Researchers seeking the EOS often calculate it at higher temperatures or lower densities. They then draw conclusions for the system across a wider range of conditions. However, physicists have come to understand in recent years that an EOS obtained from an experiment is only relevant for a specific range of densities. As a result, the team needed to pull together data from a variety of accelerator experiments that used different measurements of colliding nuclei to replace those assumptions with data. “In this work, we asked two questions,” said Lynch. “For a given measurement, what density does that measurement probe? After that, we asked what that measurement tells us about the equation of state at that density.”   

In its recent paper, the team combined its own experiments from accelerator facilities in the United States and Japan. It pulled together data from 12 different experimental constraints and three neutron-star observations. The researchers focused on determining the EOS for nuclear matter ranging from half to three times a nuclei’s saturation density—the density found at the core of all stable nuclei. By producing this comprehensive EOS, the team provided new benchmarks for the larger nuclear physics and astrophysics communities to more accurately model interactions of nuclear matter.

The team improved its measurements at intermediate densities that neutron star observations do not provide through experiments at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Germany, the RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science in Japan, and the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (FRIB’s predecessor). To enable key measurements discussed in this article, their experiments helped fund technical advances in data acquisition for active targets and time projection chambers that are being employed in many other experiments world-wide.   

In running these experiments at FRIB, Tsang and Lynch can continue to interact with MSU students who help advance the research with their own input and innovation. MSU operates FRIB as a scientific user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. FRIB is the only accelerator-based user facility on a university campus as one of 28 DOE-SC user facilities .  Chun Yen Tsang, the first author on the Nature Astronomy  paper, was a graduate student under Betty Tsang during this research and is now a researcher working jointly at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Kent State University. 

“Projects like this one are essential for attracting the brightest students, which ultimately makes these discoveries possible, and provides a steady pipeline to the U.S. workforce in nuclear science,” Tsang said.

The proposed FRIB energy upgrade ( FRIB400 ), supported by the scientific user community in the 2023 Nuclear Science Advisory Committee Long Range Plan , will allow the team to probe at even higher densities in the years to come. FRIB400 will double the reach of FRIB along the neutron dripline into a region relevant for neutron-star crusts and to allow study of extreme, neutron-rich nuclei such as calcium-68. 

Eric Gedenk is a freelance science writer.

Michigan State University operates the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB) as a user facility for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), supporting the mission of the DOE-SC Office of Nuclear Physics. Hosting what is designed to be the most powerful heavy-ion accelerator, FRIB enables scientists to make discoveries about the properties of rare isotopes in order to better understand the physics of nuclei, nuclear astrophysics, fundamental interactions, and applications for society, including in medicine, homeland security, and industry.

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of today’s most pressing challenges. For more information, visit energy.gov/science.