research paper published first author

• 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.

How to Decide the First Author and Corresponding Author in a Manuscript

When a scholarly/academic paper is produced, the researchers participating in the work must assign a first author and corresponding author. This is a challenging decision and sometimes there’s conflict because the positions can also indicate status (whether real or perceived).

The first author and corresponding author, ideally, are decided during the research and through a mutual agreement among the authors. It’s made based on an understanding of the role and significance of the positions. The author order generally indicates the amount of contribution.

The first author is considered to have contributed more than the second author, and so forth, until reaching the author in the last position. A shared first author (co-first author) or shared corresponding author (co-corresponding author), however, isn’t out of the question.

The last position may also be prestigious – considered the senior author or principal investigator. One of the authors in the list will also be the corresponding author. This means they coordinate the publication process (such as arranging editing and communicating with the journal and with other inquiries) and have their contact information shown upfront in the work.

• What you’ll learn in this post
• The differences between first author and corresponding author (and what’s a senior author?).
• How first author and corresponding author are defined.
• How to fairly determine which author(s) will fulfill which role(s).
• When and why the same person might fulfill both roles.

Determining the author order

What defines the first author, some of the main duties of a first author are:, what defines a corresponding author, some of the corresponding author’s main duties are:, and who is the senior author, a few words on guarantors, can the first and the corresponding authors be the same person, how do you decide who does what role what are the potential ethical issues.

The order of authors should reasonably correspond to how the authors contributed to the work. It also implies specific credit and responsibilities that go with being in these positions. Working it out over a cup of tea or coffee as soon as possible can help to avoid disputes, and even mediation , later on.

The issue of determining a senior author is also a bit challenging. You need to understand these roles and responsibilities. Don’t just think about who gets the most credit.

Publishing in a scientific journal or any peer-reviewed publication, including preprints and poster presentations , makes research visible to the greater public. It brings discoveries and insights into the eyes of the main experts around the world. This, in turn, builds the author’s reputation as a researcher.

Having a good list of published papers can also help achieve some career goals, such as getting a degree, a promotion or, as a scientist, getting funding to continue with research. The number of first-author papers may also be looked upon as a positive metric.

An “author” (having authorship) of a paper must meet certain criteria for their contributions. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) guidelines state authorship must at least include:

• made substantial contributions to work
• approved the final version
• assumed responsibility and accountability for what is published

However, while the minimum requirements for authorship are generally agreed upon, the credit/responsibility given to a specific author list isn’t so clear. The position on the list can determine the author’s expected duties and show the readers how the author contributed to the work.

So let’s take a deeper look at the definitions of these positions. Hopefully, this will help in your decision-making process. It may in fact affect your future career and status.

Effective English Writing

Get insights from a real journal editor!

This quick handy PDF highlights what to do (and what NOT to do) when writing your research manuscript.

Our experts show you how to write effectively for better readability and faster publication!

Free PDF e-book

The first author is usually the person who makes the greatest practical/intellectual contributions to the work.

This person might have co-authors’ assistance with specific tasks, but they are the main responsible one for acquiring and analyzing the data, and for writing the final manuscript.

The first position in the authorship list of a paper is the most attractive one. First authors will have their (last) name mentioned in every future citation of the work, no matter how many other authors there are.

There can also be co-first authors. This is common in projects that require different areas of expertise. It’s also used where it’s hard to figure out who made a larger contribution. Two or even three authors can be listed as equal contributors.

The co-first authors are denoted by an asterisk or other symbol (for example, “ Author A*, Author B*, Author C, Author D.. ”) and a note on the first page.

But even then, the person listed first will continue to be the most visible. This is because of how citations are created. To give equal credit to both first authors, an alternative is to cite the paper as “ Author A & Author B et al .”., instead of “ Author A et al. ”

• Make intellectual contributions to the work. Participate in the conception and planning of the study; define aims and trace a methodological approach to achieve them.
• Generate the data. For instance, perform experiments, conduct literature reviews, write programming code, etc.
• Analyze the results. Generate graphs , tables , and illustrations to convey the data, and perform statistical analyses when needed.
• Write and edit the manuscript.
• Help the corresponding author with referees’ queries when the paper is under revision.

The corresponding author is responsible for bringing together the manuscript, and for the whole process of submitting it to a journal, up to (hopefully!) final acceptance. Of course, the corresponding author also must meet the academic authorship requirements.

The ICJME defines a corresponding author as someone who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.

In that sense, the corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that all the journal’s administrative requirements are fulfilled. This can include providing documents related to ethics committee approval, data and signatures from all authors, and conflict of interest (COI) statements.

In line with this, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) says the corresponding author should be someone willing to fulfill all obligations the journal stipulates ( COPE Discussion Document , 2014).

The corresponding author’s contact details are included in the article. This makes them the representative for inquiries about the work. A good corresponding author must therefore be readily available. All communications with journals or readers should be done in a timely way.

English ability is also a big help if you’re the corresponding author and you want to publish in English. You’re usually the person whom I , as the editor, will be communicating with when you choose an editing service.

• Certify the manuscript contains all the necessary parts, it is appropriately organized, and it complies with the journal’s requirements. Upload the manuscript and other files.
• Make sure all authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission. Get signed consent.
• Be in charge of all communications related to the paper. Distribute notifications to all authors (e.g., emails, peer review feedback , decision letters).
• Meet all deadlines,­ communicate with the authors and editors efficiently, and follow time schedules for publication.
• Ensure all editorial and submission policies are followed.

Note: Although there’s common sense on the main roles of a corresponding author, some of the responsibilities involved can change from one journal to another (e.g., see this list , created by the National Academy of Sciences, with different journals and their respective requirements).

The senior author is the person who provides the intellectual input and helps to design the study and the protocols to be followed. This is especially because they’re experts in that field of research.

They are also sometimes the financial driving force behind the study and generally supervise several projects. For these reasons, they are also known as the “ principal investigator .” They usually have broad experience in publishing processes, and their names appear in the last positions of the author list.

Honestly, the senior author is often the lab leader or simply the person in charge. For the work they’ve put into this to date, they earned this honor.

Some journals now ask for one author on a paper to be listed as a guarantor. The guarantor:

• accepts official responsibility for the overall integrity of the manuscript (including ethics, data handling, reporting of results, and study conduct)
• does not act as the primary correspondent for the manuscript
• ensures all statements in the manuscript are true to his knowledge

The guarantor can be the same as the corresponding author, or can be another of the authors.

It’s often recommended that the Principal Investigator or Senior Researcher on a manuscript act as the guarantor as they will be responsible for the study supervision already; however, this is not explicitly required.

Yes, first authors can also be corresponding authors in a manuscript. In fact, it’s quite common.

The main conflict here is when authors equate being a corresponding author with seniority. Senior authors are often viewed as the perfect corresponding authors because of all the qualities they have, as mentioned.

However, as discussed, a corresponding author is charged with communicating with editors and readers only. Journal editors usually see this as an administrative role. Therefore, the corresponding author doesn’t necessarily have to be the seniormost author.

While there’s a special responsibility involved in this role, it’s not supposed to be a mark of distinction. Also, most senior authors will probably have less available time to reply to queries during the submission review process. And they may not have time to respond to reader queries in the future.

So, first authors should be expected to serve as corresponding authors. This is the case as long as they’re consistently involved in the study and know-how to go through the submission/publication process.

This includes deciding on the need for scientific editing if the English needs improving. The role can also help them gain experience in corresponding with journals and general readers.

Even when the first and corresponding authors aren’t the same person some of their duties can be shared.

While a corresponding author can help the first author, or main author, with data analysis, for example, the first author can help the corresponding author prepare the documents for submission.

The same applies to other authors. Deciding who does what role should be clearly discussed and defined beforehand. Ideally, researchers involved in the study should have regular meetings to clarify responsibilities and update the status of the work. New co-authors may be included and other members may end their involvement along the way. Doing this planning may help prevent conflicts regarding academic authorship and help manage any disputes (Albert & Wager, 2009).

There are many possible reasons for conflict (you can find many examples of real cases on COPE’s website ). Disputes around first authorship are more common because this is the most prestigious position and an important measure of productivity. This happens, for example, when two authors both claim they contributed the most. This issue can be solved by proposing co-first authorship, or by using a system to quantify their contributions and then decide who should go first.

There can also be disagreements when the senior author wants to be the first author, or main author. For example, they may need more or higher-impact publications as the first author. Or they wrote the manuscript and believe this entitles them to be the first author.

Disputes on who will be the corresponding author are less likely. That’s because the role, as mentioned, doesn’t have any special distinction other than a visible name and contact. However, some senior authors may still want this role and occasionally there’s some conflict.

Ideally, the corresponding author should be decided among the others. It’s also possible to share the position, have shared corresponding authors; e.g. both the first and senior authors are co-corresponding authors. This may actually work out well if one is available and the other isn’t.

Every participant should feel free to seek clarity throughout the collaboration. Consider having a written document ( see this example PDF file on APA) in place as guidance ( COPE Discussion Document , 2014; Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement , n.d.).

Before publication, authors should reunite to check the previous responsibilities list and create a final version of the documents. This includes detailed information on the type and extent of the contribution of each person involved. For categories of contributions, see the Contributor Roles Taxonomy [CRediT] website (McNutt et al., 2018). To quantify contributions, different proposed systems can be found in the literature (APA, for example, proposed a scorecard – see their Helpful Tools files).

As several journals now request and publish information about each author’s contributions, such documents can be essential. This can help in creating standards that will improve transparency in the system of scientific publishing. That, in turn, greatly reduces ethical concerns and authorship disputes.

Our Publication Support team is ready to hear from you if you want to accelerate your path to publication. And explore valuable research services that can help increase your impact and avoid ethical mishaps.

This is a guest post from Adam Goulston, PsyD, MBA, MS, MISD, ELS. Adam runs the Asia-based science marketing and PR company Scize . He has worked as an in-house Senior Language Editor, as well as a manuscript editor, with Edanz.

Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2009). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1

COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. (2014). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3

Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://research.fas.harvard.edu/links/guidelines-authorship-and-acknowledgement

McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557-2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115

• Researcher Services
• English Editing
• EXCITED by the SCIENCE
• Smart Tools
• Journal Selector
• About Edanz
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Services & Pricing
• 特定商取引法に基づく表記

OPINION article

Guiding undergraduates through the process of first authorship.

• Department of Psychology, Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX, United States

Introduction

Dozens of excellent papers have recently been written that describe best practices for publishing journal articles with undergraduates (see “Engaging Undergraduates in Publishable Research: Best Practices,” Frontiers in Psychology ); for the most part, these involve students as co-authors in general rather than as lead authors. In this paper, I specifically focus on how to guide undergraduates through the process of first authorship. After describing potential barriers, I discuss issues of authorship contribution before outlining several successful strategies I've developed during my 24 years of collaborating with undergraduates. Although mentoring students to be first authors can be challenging, the rewards can also be immense—for both the students and the faculty mentors who are up to the challenge.

The Undergraduate First Author: a Unicorn?

A literature search revealed not a single article on the topic of undergraduates publishing as first author. Without any data, it's hard to know for certain how common it is for undergraduates to publish as first authors, but informal discussions with psychology colleagues around the world who collaborate with undergraduates (and examinations of faculty vitae) suggest that it is far less common than undergraduates publishing as non-lead authors.

Barriers (Real or Perceived) to Undergraduate First Authorship

Because it is rare to see undergraduate first authors, many faculty are likely unaware that at least some undergraduates can—with proper training, encouragement, and careful mentoring—be capable of serving as first authors on papers in refereed journals. Even if faculty members are made aware of this fact (as I hope to accomplish with this article), other barriers exist. For example, many faculty work under a reward system in which publications (and first author publications in particular) determine tenure, promotion, pay, likelihood of securing grants, and job security (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992 ; Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ; Wilcox, 1998 ). The primary tradeoff is that the time it takes to mentor undergraduates through first authorship is generally much longer than the time it would take for the faculty member to be the lead author. The great experience provided to the student (see Matthews and Rosa, 2018 ), therefore, can come at the cost of decreased productivity (e.g., fewer publications overall, fewer first author publications, publications in lower-tier journals), which could be problematic for faculty at institutions that don't highly value faculty-undergraduate research. Finally, recent trends in psychological science, such as the difficulty of publishing single-study papers in some subfields and the “open science” movement calling for large sample sizes, pre-registration, and replication (see Chambers, 2017 ; Nelson et al., 2018 ) can seem like roadblocks to publishing with undergraduates. Fortunately, faculty from diverse subfields have come up with creative solutions involving high-quality replications (e.g., McKelvie and Standing, 2018 ; Wagge et al., 2019 ), preregistered projects (e.g., Strand and Brown, 2019 ), large-scale single-experiment class projects designed for publication (e.g., LoSchiavo, 2018 ; Mickley Steinmetz and Reid, 2019 ), and multi-study projects involving student coauthors across years (e.g., Grysman and Lodi-Smith, 2019 ; Holmes and Roberts, 2019 ).

Authorship Contribution and Order of Authorship

Much has been written about the ethics of assigning authorship credit in the sciences and social sciences (see Maurer, 2017 , for a review), and attempts have been made to fairly determine authorship order by (a) surveying past authors about their experiences (e.g., Wagner et al., 1994 ; Sandler and Russell, 2005 ; Moore and Griffin, 2006 ; Geelhoed et al., 2007 ), (b) assessing reactions to hypothetical authorship scenarios (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992 ; Bartle et al., 2000 ; Apgar and Congress, 2005 ), (c) proposing step-by-step decision-making models ( Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ; Foster and Ray, 2012 ; Maurer, 2017 ), and (d) outlining quantitative systems that assign weighted points to tasks associated with publishing (e.g., Winston, 1985 ; Kosslyn, 2015 ). The consensus seems to be that writing the manuscript is either the most important factor in determining first authorship (e.g., Winston, 1985 ; Bartle et al., 2000 ; Apgar and Congress, 2005 ) or at least tied with idea origination as the most important factor ( Wagner et al., 1994 ; Kosslyn, 2015 ). The “authorship determination scorecard” on the American Psychological Association's website ( https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper.aspx ), for example, allots 170 of 1,040 points (16%) for idea generation/refinement; 110 points (11%) for design/measures; 160 points (15%) for statistical analysis, and 600 points (58%) for writing/revision.

Given the clear importance of writing as a factor in first authorship, and because students' contributions to idea generation, design, and analysis are often similar to those of their collaborators up to this point, I always require students to take responsibility for the manuscript drafts and revisions (with my feedback and editing help) to earn their first authorship. I am typically second author (consistent with the “order of contribution” norm in social psychology) because I play a significant role in the publication process, but less than the first author. The remaining student authors tend to be less involved (consistent with Geelhoed et al., 2007 ) because of lack of time or interest, or geographical distance. Nonetheless, all authors are always asked to read and approve the final manuscript before submission.

Paths to Undergraduate First Authorship

My mentor, the late Dan Wegner (a social psychologist who ended his career at Harvard but started at a small liberal arts university doing research with undergraduates) advised me as I began my career at an undergraduate-only institution that “the best undergraduates are often better than graduate students” because they are “not only very bright, but often are more intrinsically motivated—if you hold them to high standards, they will meet or exceed them, and you can publish great work with them.” I followed his advice, and indeed have published the vast majority of my papers with undergraduates as co-authors, and especially as first authors: Of my 33 post-graduate school publications, 29 papers involve a total of 68 undergraduate co-authors, and 24 of the 29 are first-authored by undergraduates 1 .

In my experience, there have been three primary paths to undergraduate first authorship, each representing approximately one-third of my publications with students. First, during our one-semester research methods course with a lab (capped at 12 students), sophomores and sometimes juniors complete two original projects and manuscript write-ups, and conducting high quality, original projects is a big factor (see LoSchiavo, 2018 ); about 10% of my class projects lead to publication. Second, each faculty member has a capstone course in which they work with 5 to 6 seniors (or sometimes juniors) for two consecutive semesters; about 90% of my capstone projects lead to publication 2 . Third, I occasionally accept projects for individual honors theses or independent studies (independent research outside of capstone is rare in our department, perhaps one senior every several years) if I think they are publishable; about 90% of these projects lead to publication.

Best Practices

Here are some of the strategies I've developed over the years to successfully mentor students to first authorship:

1. Provide good writing instruction throughout the curriculum . It is crucial to teach good writing skills throughout the curriculum ( Soysa et al., 2013 ) so that the largest number of students possible has a strong background and the potential capacity to be first author. (My university has 1,400 students, and we graduate 25–30 psychology majors annually, so with 4–5 faculty members striving to publish with students each year, this step is crucial). Our department places a strong emphasis on students learning APA style as well as proper grammar (see Giuliano, 2019 ), and all instructors provide copious feedback on student drafts. Although group writing is popular elsewhere (e.g., small groups of students who write APA-style papers together on their research methods project), instructors in our department require individual writing (as well as peer review) in both research methods and capstone courses so that every student improves and gets the maximum amoun of practice.

2. Select the most “first-author-ready” students . I've found that it is important to select students with certain characteristics—those who not only have the strongest writing skills, but who are hardworking, independent, intellectually curious, and intrinsically motivated 3 . The process starts when I read a paper (e.g., a research methods final paper, a senior capstone paper, or an honors thesis) that has good results, that is “close enough” that I can envision grooming it into a publishable paper, and that has been written by a student with the characteristics described above.

3. Explain what authorship entails . At that point, I ask the student if she or he would like to first author a publication under my supervision (Virtually every invitee will have already first-authored a conference presentation with me, so I know that we are a “good fit” and that they know exactly what to expect when working with me.). As recommended by Foster and Ray (2012) , I explain which contributions determine first authorship: I tell them they have already earned authorship by making significant contributions in the idea, design, and analysis stages, as have their student collaborators, so they will earn first authorship by being responsible for writing the manuscript, with plenty of feedback and supervision from me. To provide “informed consent” about this decision ( Fine and Kurdek, 1993 ), I outline clear expectations (i.e., that they can expect to write 10–15 drafts or more over a period of several months, that this will be a much higher standard of writing than they have ever done in the past, and that at times this process could get frustrating and tedious) and let them know that they are free to accept or decline without any adverse consequences (about 95% of students accept). I also tell them that first authorship is not guaranteed and that authorship order may need to be revised if contributions change (Only once or twice in 24 years has first authorship changed; my students have generally been excellent at following through with their commitments.).

4. Get them ready to write . Once students agree to be first author, the next step is to provide them with exemplar articles (I use past publications from my own students). I then set an initial calendar of deadlines (e.g., when their drafts are due to me, when my feedback is due to them); I usually draft this first and then allow students to make modifications according to their schedule. Finally, I have students research and take notes on potential target journals (we then discuss the pros and cons together and decide where to send the paper once finished).

5. Find time to write . Finding time to write can be tricky, because students are often either busy with other courses or have moved on to jobs or graduate school. Summers are usually optimal for both students and me. For research methods class projects, I usually suggest writing during the summer after the course is over (setting the final deadline before the new semester starts). If students are in town, we meet in person occasionally but generally trade drafts over email and have in-person or by-phone meetings when necessary. Writing with students who have graduated is often more difficult because those with jobs are busy working during the day and no longer in “academic mode,” so I find that it takes more patience and encouragement to get them back into the writing. If they are in graduate school, they are already immersed in research, which is helpful, but projects with their graduate advisor compete for their attention. Students who have graduated are also more likely to be out of town, which is only a problem if in-person meetings (e.g., to re-analyze data) are necessary, although online meeting applications (e.g., Facetime, Skype) work fine. Ultimately, it may take some creativity to find the time and space for writing, as in “writing weekends” (see Scherman, under review), but in the end, it is worth it.

Publishing with students is truly my favorite part of being a professor—the thrill I get upon seeing a student's name in print (especially in the lead position) is often greater than the thrill I get from seeing my own name. As others have argued (e.g., Malachowski, 2012 ; Maurer, 2017 ), when working with students, it is best to treat them as equals and true partners in the collaboration process, with high levels of autonomy and a strong focus on student learning. In doing so, the rewards—for both students and faculty alike—are incredibly worthwhile.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I'd like to thank Sarah Matthews, Carin Perilloux, Abby Riggs, Marissa Rosa, and Toni Wegner for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

1. ^ Four are in the Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research ; the remainder are in professional, peer-reviewed journals.

2. ^ It should be noted that our department recently switched from an informal system in which either faculty or students approached the other about the possibility of research collaboration to a more formal capstone assignment process in which all students (during their required research methods course) complete a written application describing their interest in conducting a research-based capstone and rank their preference for faculty labs. This process not only improved transparency, but also provided more equitable information, access, and opportunity for all students, who are assigned to labs by fit and interest. Recent articles have addressed both the benefits of increasing diversity and inclusion in undergraduate research and publication (e.g., Peifer, 2019 ) and specific strategies for doing so (e.g., Ahmad et al., under review; Chan, 2019 ; Scisco et al., 2019 ) and are highly recommended.

3. ^ Approximately half of my first authors went on to Ph.D. programs in psychology; the other half went to law school, medical school, master's programs, or did not seek a graduate degree.

Apgar, D., and Congress, E. (2005). Authorship credit: a national study of social work educators' beliefs. J. Soc. Work Educ. 41, 101–112. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2005.200300356

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bartle, S. A., Fink, A. A., and Hayes, B. C. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological publications. Psychol. Rep. 86, 771–788. doi: 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.771

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chambers, C. D. (2017). The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology: A Manifesto for Reforming the Culture of Scientific Practice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

Chan, E. (2019). Student research and publication: strategic planning for inclusion using a systems mapping approach. Front. Psychol. 10:6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00006

Costa, M. M., and Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychol. Sci. 3, 354–357. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x

Fine, M. A., and Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. Am. Psychol. 48, 1141–1147. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141

Foster, R. D., and Ray, D. C. (2012). An ethical decision-making model to determine authorship credit in published faculty-student collaborations. Counsel. Values 57, 214–228 doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.2012.00018.x

Geelhoed, R. J., Phillips, J. C., Rischer, A. R., Shpungin, E., and Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: an empirical investigation. Ethics Behav. 17, 95–115. doi: 10.1080/10508420701378057

Giuliano, T. (2019). The “Writing Spiral”: A handy tool for training undergraduates to write publishable-quality manuscripts. Front. Educ . 10:915. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00915

Grysman, A., and Lodi-Smith, J. (2019). Methods for conducting and publishing narrative research with undergraduates. Front. Psychol. 9:2771. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02771

Holmes, K. J., and Roberts, T. (2019). Mentor as sculptor, makeover artist, coach or CEO: evaluating contrasting models for mentoring undergraduates mesearch toward publishable research. Front. Psychol. 10:231. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00231

Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). “Authorship: credit where credit is due,” in Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences: Case Studies and Commentaries , eds R. J. Sternberg and S. T. Fiske (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press), 50–52. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139626491.021

LoSchiavo, F. M. (2018). Incorporating a professional-grade all-class project into a research methods course. Front. Psychol. 9:2143. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02143

Malachowski, M. R. (2012). “Living in parallel universes: the great faculty divide between product-oriented and process-oriented scholarship,” in Faculty Support and Undergraduate Research: Innovations in Faculty Role Definition, Workload, and Reward , eds N. H. Hensel and E. L. Paul (Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research), 7–18.

Matthews, S. J., and Rosa, M. N (2018). Trials, tribulations, and triumphs: research and publishing from the undergraduate perspective. Front. Psychol. 9:2411. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02411

Maurer, T. (2017). Guidelines for authorship credit, order, and co-inquireer learning in collaborative faculty-student SoTL projects. Teach. Learn. Inquiry 5, 1–17. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.9

McKelvie, S., and Standing, L. G. (2018). Teaching psychology research methodology across the curriculum to promote undergraduate publication: an eight-course structure and two helpful practices. Front. Psychol. 9:2295. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02295

Mickley Steinmetz, K. R., and Reid, A. K. (2019). Providing outstanding undergraduate research experiences and sustainable faculty development in load. Front. Psychol. 10:196. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00196

Moore, M. T., and Griffin, B. W. (2006). Identification of factors that influence authorship name placement and decision to collaborate in peer-reviewed, education-related publications. Stud. Educ. Eval. 32, 125–135. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.04.004

Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., and Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology's renaissance. Annual Rev. Psychol. 69, 511–534. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836

Peifer, J. S. (2019). Context and reasons for bolstering diversity in undergraduate research. Front. Psychol. 10:336. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00336

Sandler, J. C., and Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics Behav. 15, 65–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5

Scisco, J. L., McCabe, J. A., Mendoza, A. T. O., Fallong, M., and Domenech Rodriquez, M. M. (2019). Strategies for selecting, managing, and engaging undergraduate co-authors: a multi-site perspective. Front. Psychol. 10:325. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00325

Soysa, C. K., Dunn, D. S., Dottolo, A. L., Burns-Glover, A. L., and Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Orchestrating authorship: teaching writing across the psychology curriculum. Teach. Psychol. 40, 88–97. doi: 10.1177/0098628312475027

Strand, J. F., and Brown, V. A. (2019). Publishing open, reproducible research with undergraduates. Front. Psychol. 10:564. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00564

Wagge, J. R., Brandt, M. J., Lazarevic, L. B., Legate, N., Christopherson, C., Wiggins, B., et al. (2019). Publishing research with undergraduate students via replication work: the collaborative replications and extensions project. Front. Psychol. 10:247. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00247

Wagner, M. K., Dodds, A., and Bundy, M. B. (1994). Psychology of the scientist: LXVII. Assignment of authorship credit in psychological research. Psychol. Rep. 74, 179–187. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1994.74.1.179

Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: the coin of the realm, the source of complaints. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 216–217. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.216

Winston, R. B. Jr. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. J. Counsel. Dev. 63, 515–518. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1985.tb02749.x

Undergraduate* First-Author Publications

*Butterworth, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., *White, J. R., *Cantu, L., & *Fraser, K. C. (In Press). Is he flirting with me? How sender gender influences emoji interpretation. Frontiers in Psychology .

*Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., *Rosa, M. N., *Thomas, K. H., *Swift, B. A., *Ahearn, N. D., *Garcia, A. G., *Smith, S. R., *Niblett, C. M., & *Mills, M. M. (2018). The battle against bedroom boredom: Development and validation of a brief measure of sexual novelty in relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 27 , 277-287.

*Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., *Thomas, K. H., *Straup, M. L., & *Martinez, M. A. (2018). Not cool, dude: Perceptions of solicited vs. unsolicited sext messages from men and women. Computers in Human Behavior, 88 , 1-4. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.14

*Matthews, S. J., Giuliano, T. A., *Rosa, M. N., *Thomas, K. H., & *Swift, B. A. (2018). Sexual Novelty Scale. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

*Hutzler, K. T., Giuliano, T. A, *Herselman, J. R., & *Johnson, S. M. (2015). Three's a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7 , 69-87. 10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102

*Johnson, S. M., Giuliano, T. A, *Herselman, J. R., & *Hutzler, K. T. (2015). Development of a brief measure of attitudes towards polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 6 , 325-339. 10.1080/19419899.2014.1001774

*Blomquist, B.A., & Giuliano, T. A. (2012). “Do you love me, too?” Perceptions of Responses to ‘I love you.” North American Journal of Psychology, 14 , 407-418.

*Gomillion, S. C., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58 , 330-354.

*Howell, J., * & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The effects of expletive use and team gender on perceptions of coaching effectiveness. Journal of Sport Behavior, 34 , 69-81.

*Howell, J., *Egan, P., *Ackley, B., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The reverse double standard in perceptions of student-teacher sexual relationships: The role of gender, initiation, and power. Journal of Social Psychology, 151 (2), 180-200.

*Egan, P., & Giuliano, T. A. (2009). Unaccommodating attitudes: Perceptions of students with learning disabilities as a function of accommodation use and test performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 11 , 487-500.

*Osborne, R. L, *Ackley B. D, & Giuliano, T. A., (2008). The “skinny” on coffee drinkers: Gender differences in healthy beverage choice. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13(4) , 159-163.

*Riggs, A. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2007). Running in the family or swimming in the gene pool: The role of family history and genetic risk in individuals' illness perceptions. Journal of Health Psychology, 12 , 883-894.

*Stanzer, M., Guarraci, F., Giuliano, T. A., & Sims, A. (2007). Paramedic or EMT-basic partner? Study evaluates preferred partner types & the effect of partners on work-related stress levels. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 32: 72-74.

*Knight, J. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2003). Blood, sweat, and jeers: The impact of the media's heterosexist portrayals on perceptions of male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26 , 272-284.

*Wilke, K. M., *Turner, K. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2003). Smoke screens: Cross-cultural effectiveness of anti-smoking messages. North American Journal of Psychology, 5 , 431-442.

*Dodd E. H., Giuliano, T. A., *Boutell, J. M., & *Moran, B. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles , 45, 567-577.

*Knight, J. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2001). She's a “looker;” he's a Laker: The consequences of gender-stereotypical portrayals of male and female athletes by the print media. Sex Roles, 45 , 217-229.

*Knight, J. L., Giuliano, T. A., & *Sanchez-Ross, M. G. (2001). Famous or infamous? The influence of celebrity status and race on perceptions of responsibility for rape. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23 , 183-190.

*Dickson, A., Giuliano, T. A., *Morris, J. C., & *Cass, K. L. (2001). Eminem versus Charley Pride: Race, stereotypes, and perceptions of rap and country music performers. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6 , 175-179.

*Kirkendall, K. D., *Dixon, D. P., Giuliano, T. A., & *Raney, A. E. (2001). The bold and the beautiful: The effect of physical attractiveness and extraversion on desirability. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 6 , 180-186.

*Cohorn, C. A., & Giuliano, T. A. (1999). Predictors of adjustment and institutional attachment in first-year college students. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 4 , 47-56.

*Cox, C. B., & Giuliano, T. A. (1999). Constructing obstacles vs. making excuses: Examining perceivers' reactions to behavioral and self-reported self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,14 , 419-432.

*Fiala, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., *Remlinger, N. M., & *Braithwaite, L. C. (1999). Lending a helping hand: The effects of sex stereotypes and gender on likelihood of helping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 , 2164-2176.

Keywords: undergraduate research, undergraduate publication, publishing, first authorship, faculty-student collaboration

Citation: Giuliano TA (2019) Guiding Undergraduates Through the Process of First Authorship. Front. Psychol . 10:857. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00857

Received: 05 February 2019; Accepted: 01 April 2019; Published: 18 April 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Giuliano. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Traci A. Giuliano, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author Insights - What to expect when publishing your first research paper.

Advice and tips from influential researchers who have been in the exact same starting position as you..

Are you considering publishing your research? Do you want to understand what to expect and learn some tips and tricks? Do you know the benefits and opportunities publishing your paper will bring?

In this case study, we talk to some influential researchers and dig down into what to expect when publishing your first paper, including what publishing was like for them and what they did after publishing their first paper.

Beyond these interviews, we highlight the key tips for researchers new to publishing, and identify the best publishing support tools researchers should be aware of, such as writing your journal article , the submission check list and sites such as Editage .

Q&A with Dr Eden Morales-Narváez

Q&A with Dr Eden Morales-Narváez

We chat with Dr Eden Morales Narvaez, winner of the  Emerging Leaders 2020 award in JPhys Photonics , who has published 20 papers, starting with his first paper on  Plasmonic colored nanopaper: a potential preventive healthcare tool against threats emerging from uncontrolled UV exposure  published in 2019. Eden is now an editorial board member for the  JPhys Photonics  journal .

What made you decide to publish your first research paper?

“A great mentor combined with surprising results led me to publish my first paper.

I joined Professor Arben Merkoçi’s team (Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology) in early 2011. In those times, our research team was very motivated by graphene: the wonder material. So, I performed some experiments with graphene oxide and discovered that we were able to quench the photoluminescence of quantum dots with an almost 100% efficiency.

At the beginning, I did not feel convinced about this surprising results that I was getting (I believed that perhaps my results were wrong), but a chat with my mentor was really encouraging, and then my mind changed completely. I remember that he said: Yes, Eden, people in science get surprising results, people do that! So, my mentor vitalized my self-confidence, and this was simply the starting point of my first research paper and somehow my scientific journey. Nowadays, I still publish papers taking advantage of the wonder material and its photoluminescence quenching capabilities.”

What do you know now that you wish you knew when you were starting the process to publish your paper?

“I have to confess that at the beginning I was looking for a publication related to the biomedical field, because my thesis was expected to be focused in such a field. However, when I published my first paper in the materials field, I realized that early career researchers can modify the scope of their thesis to eventually unveil new steps and future opportunities in their career.

Besides, I am now aware that writing skills are your Swiss Army knife to succeed in the process to publish your paper. Editors and reviewers demand high quality papers, but they also enjoy manuscripts nicely and clearly written, the same as the readers. Professor Osvaldo Oliveira (University of São Paulo) says that writing skills are your best investment as a scientist and he also points out that a scientist with good writing skills is much better equipped than a scientist with other kinds of skills or resources. I could not agree more with Professor Oliveira.”

What did you enjoy/not-enjoy about publishing your research?

“I enjoyed sharing and discussing my published results in conferences and presentations. Seeing that my peers were reading and citing my research was also very satisfying. But no one enjoys rejection of their manuscripts, which is also part of the journey. Rejection is discouraging, but it is also an opportunity to change the scope of your research and/or improve the quality of your manuscript.”

How can IOP Publishing help early career researchers who are starting out in their publishing journey?

“Offer webinars on writing skills, promote all type of tools which are valuable in such a journey and explain their particularities and usefulness; for example, scientific search engines, journal suggesters/finders, plagiarism detectors, journal citation reports, research metrics, etc.”

Are there any tips, tools or websites that you would recommend?

• Feel passionate about your field or research topic. Mix such a passion with patience and resilience, which are crucial abilities to be developed in a scientific career.
• Seek a mentor whose results are inspirational and motivating for you. Mentors not only shape your current career but also the future of your career.
• Invest in your writing skills (as highlighted by Professor Oliveira).
• In order to publish innovative literature, you have to be aware of the state-of-the art in your field.
• Read, read and read more, especially the journals you would like to publish in.
• Be critical, spot agreements, gaps and controversies in your field.
• One of your goals should be to write and publish a review article related to your thesis/research topic.
• Avoid plagiarism, this type of misconduct can be easily spotted by peers using tools like ithenticate .
• Promote your research on social media using messages easy to understand. Social media is a perfect way to reach society, decision-makers, colleagues and stakeholders. Follow and interact with inspirational colleagues on social media.
• If you are not sure about the target journal of your manuscript, I recommend Master Journal List . This fantastic tool helps you to find suitable journals for your manuscript depending on the title and abstract.

What did you do after you published your paper? Did you promote it? How?

“The acceptance and publication of your first paper is a very special moment. Nausea, by Beck, was playing on my computer when I received the news of the acceptance of my first publication (I will never forget it). I happily jumped from my seat and celebrated the good news with my wife. In those times, I was not particularly active on social media but I immediately had the opportunity to share my results in NanoSpain 2012 (Santander), where I received valuable feedback on my research. It was really useful to plan new experiments and future work.”

How has publishing your paper influenced your career and networking?

“As I previously mentioned, I still publish papers taking advantage of the wonder material and its photoluminescence quenching capabilities. I am also the inventor of two related patents and several of my post-graduate students are developing their thesis taking advantage of the wonder material, even in translational settings. My networking opportunities were also enhanced; for instance, together with prestigious colleagues, I have organized some special issues dealing with 2D materials in reputable journals, I have several collaborations related to 2D materials and I have been invited by many editors to review countless manuscripts related to graphene derivatives. My first paper is also one of the most cited in my list of research papers. Definitely, that first publication represents a cornerstone in my career and networking opportunities.”

What would you say to an early career researcher who is asking the question “Should I consider publishing my research?”

“Absolutely! It will boost your career!”

Q&A with Professor Caterina Cocchi

Q&A with Professor Caterina Cocchi

We talk to Professor Caterina Cocchi, who is heavily involved in Electronic Structure (EST) ’s Emerging Leaders issues ( 2020 and  2021 ) as well as the past events, and who has also joined EST as a guest editor.

“IOP Publishing and publishers in general could offer more resources to train young scientists to write papers and to act as peer reviewers. For some unknown reason, academic education does not typically include official seminars or training about scientific writing and publishing. Both activities are typically passed on from mentor to mentee, naturally generating big gaps among scientists, which may ultimately affect their career. The ability to write a clear and convincing scientific text is not only key for publishing good papers but also to win grants, positions and, ultimately, to be visible in the community.”

“When writing a paper, it is important to communicate a clear message and to give the manuscript a clear structure. Also, using only essential words is much more effective than diluting the content in endless prose. During the peer-review process, it is important to always consider the referees’ comments on a factual level. Never take them personally.

I follow a few blogs about scientific writing. I can definitely suggest the one by Anna Clemens . It is regularly updated and offers a broad spectrum of suggestions and hints about scientific writing and about the whole publication process.”

“I published my first paper in 2010 and back then social media was not very much used by the scientific community. To disseminate, I attended a number of conferences and workshops in which I presented the results of that paper.”

“Publishing is the essence of scientific work. Any piece of work that is not published or disseminated to the community simply does not exist. Hence, if you want to give visibility to your work, you have to publish it. Very often, I see in young scientists the fear of submitting something that is not perfect, and this is usually the cause of big delays in publications. My motto is “published is better than perfect” and I encourage my young co-workers to wrap up their work effectively and disseminate it in a timely manner. Should the results be disproved later, well, this is how science works, right?”

Author Insights Summary

We hope you enjoyed reading these inspiring interviews and have gathered some useful knowledge to help you with your publishing journey. Below are some of our key take-aways from both interviews useful for early career researchers publishing their first article.

Alongside this, we also have an extremely useful Publishing Support hub for both authors and reviewers which include free resources such as:

• Article templates – both double and single anonymous templates. These may help to speed the publication of accepted articles.
• Editage – Language and figure editing services. Helping you prepare your paper ready for submissions.
• Track my article – a platform which helps you find out where in the journey your paper is at.
• Paperpal Preflight – A free pre submission feedback service which checks for and highlights issues before you submit your paper.
• IOP Academy resources and events – workshops, webinars and online training covering various aspects of publishing in journals.
• Submission checklist – check you have covered everything before submitting your paper.

Key findings:

Promoting and networking is important:

• Take part in discussions and presentations at conferences and workshops to present the results of your paper.
• Use social media to get your messages across in an accessible way.

Rejection isn’t bad:

• Rejection is part of the journey – it’s an opportunity to change the scope of your research as well, potentially unveiling new steps and future opportunities.
• Always consider the referees’ comment on a factual level. Never take them personally.

Writing skills are key:

• Writing skills are your “Swiss Army knife” to succeed in publishing your paper.
• Make sure you have clear and well written manuscripts.
• There are useful blogs and websites about scientific writing.

Keep on top of the research in your area:

• Be aware of the state-of-the art in your field.
• Read more, especially the journals you would like to publish in.

Pros of publishing

• “Any piece of work that is not published or disseminated to the community simply does not exist.”
• Having published work helps networking and other opportunities for your career.
• “The ability to write a clear and convincing scientific text is not only key for publishing good papers but also to win grants, positions and, ultimately, to be visible in the community.”

Science Editor

• A Publication of the Council of Science Editors

Ten Tips for Research Scholars Aiming for Their First Significant Publication

In many scientific disciplines, research scholars not only hope to get published but aspire for a prominent authorship position on a journal paper. There is nothing vain about this; for a research scholar, a first-author publication opens doors to advancement because it shows that they can contribute substantially to a research project.

But first, who is a research scholar? Definitions and notions vary. For this article, I define a research scholar as a student in a PhD program or a research-intensive Master’s program, or a research assistant in a similar league. If you are an early-stage research scholar in a scientific discipline, you might have some experience with research and even gained authorship credit, but have you played a major role in a collaborative project? Such a role is essential if you hope to see your name as the first author on a published research paper or obtain weighty authorship credit in another form.

In this primer, I concentrate on the outcome—which I call “first significant publication”—and provide a set of tips to help you navigate your way.

1. Leadership: Take the Initiative to Lead

By “lead,” I mean leading a research project, or a particular aspect of a project, under the direction of your research advisor.

Perhaps everything has been agreed on and you find yourself playing a lead role without much deliberation. But sometimes—especially in research groups with many students, scholars, and postdocs—you should put yourself forward. You might have to be competitive.

The first step is to discuss the lead role you are hoping for with your research advisor. Do they have an opportunity for you? Or can you think of an opportunity?

Research scholars in many scientific disciplines often work within a team. Some research colleagues could be less experienced than you and some could be senior (e.g., faculty members). How are you going to convince your team that you are the right leader (or one of the leaders)? Having a positive attitude and a collaborative spirit will go a long way.

2. Teamwork: Agree on Research Questions, Goals, and Authorship

Research scholars do not usually form their project team; this is the responsibility of the research advisor (along with research funding, assistantships, and other matters). However, as a lead project member, you should have a say in the following matters and reach a consensus with your team:

• Research questions or hypotheses.   What exactly are you going to investigate in your research project? Why does it matter? Reading relevant publications (covered in Tip 6) will help you come up with good research questions.
• Goals.   This primer is focused on one of the typical goals of a scientific research project: publication in a scholarly journal. In which journal do you hope to publish the paper (or the first paper) emerging from your project? And why? Identify a few target journals at the start of your project, recognizing the many factors to consider. 1 Read the instructions for authors given by your target journals to find out if you need to be aware of anything that concerns the research process. These instructions often cover a lot more than how to format your paper.
• Authorship.   Use authorship guidelines, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines, 2 to determine who is eligible to be an author. Then comes the tricky question of the order of authors. Often, the biggest question is who should be the first author? There are many viewpoints and norms on this matter (and much vexation), which you can find online. Authorship pieces in Science and Nature are particularly instructive (e.g., Google site:science.org authorship ). Discussing the order of authors, at least provisionally, at the start of the project can prevent authorship disputes later.

3. Timeline: Be Realistic and Avoid Haste

When you take up a significant role in a collaborative research project, it can be unreasonable to expect that you will reach your publication goal by a certain date. Master’s students should be especially careful because they tend to have a graduation date in mind and may not have much flexibility.

Working with your team members and your research advisor, draft a project schedule in the form of a Gantt chart 3 or some other approach. Clarify who is responsible for what. It is likely that not everything will go as per the plan. Update the project schedule as needed; don’t give up on it! When a research project seems to drag on indefinitely, it is not necessarily because the research is difficult. Perhaps the research was not treated as a project.

4. Support: Seek Fellowship and Mentoring

By “fellowship,” I mean collegiality and a sense of belonging. You will hopefully find this within your own research group but look for it elsewhere too. Join scientific societies in your field and see how you can become an active member. Are there networking or volunteering opportunities?

A mentor is different from your research advisor. A mentor is not formally responsible for your work, and you do not report to your mentor. A mentor is someone who can capably and willingly guide you when you need support and might even be proactive in helping you progress. Is there someone in your research group who can mentor you?

Finally, take care of your health. Burnout is real. 4 Speak with your advisor or mentor if you are struggling to cope. Check if your institution provides support for wellness and mental health.

5. Ethics: Practice Responsible Conduct of Research

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is a big deal. It encompasses protections for research participants, handling research data, writing and publication practices, dealing with conflicts of interest, and other matters. Another name for RCR is responsible and ethical conduct of research.

Consider this: From July 2023 onward, all researchers named on proposals submitted to the US National Science Foundation—not just students as before—must complete RCR training. 5 This shows that RCR is not just something for research scholars to learn. After all, high-profile cases of research misconduct are in the news every now and then.

Even if you are not required to undergo RCR training, it is your responsibility to learn about RCR and practice it. The US Office of Research Integrity provides a detailed introduction to RCR. 6 Your university might provide further guidelines, and you should look up guidelines given by your target journals as well.

6. Reading: Learn How to Read Science

A basic goal of a scientific research project is to advance knowledge. So early on, you need to have a strong grasp of the knowledge that already exists—in other words, the knowledge and findings disseminated through publications (and other sources perhaps, but primarily scholarly publications). With this foundation, you can develop your research questions, make a case for why your research is relevant, design your research methodology, compare your research findings with previous findings, and so on.

Good reading skills are essential to carry out a research project. But it can be hard work to make sense of scientific research papers. What’s more, a study in 2017 found that the readability of scientific texts is decreasing. 7

Instead of assuming you somehow need to get smarter to make sense of papers, look for resources online: there are many; for example, a PLOS “ten simple rules” article 8 and a guide published in Science . 9

Upstream from the reading stage is the research access stage. To read research publications, you need to be able to access them. How can you locate the most relevant publications in the ocean of scientific literature? And how can you read publications that are behind a paywall or available only to subscribers? A subject librarian or reference librarian at your university can help you with both. You can also look for online library guides (commonly called “libguides”) published by your university or others.

While accessing research, build your own collection of research publications using a reference management tool. Compare the popular tools 10 and find one that works for you. When you write your paper, use the same tool to cite the publications you have used.

7. Focus: Keep the Research Questions in Mind

Recall Tip 2: agreeing on the research questions before you start your research project. Exploratory research has its place, but to orient a research project toward an outcome, such as a publication, you need to set up research questions or hypotheses in advance. The questionable practice of HARKing—hypothesizing after the results are known—was described in 1998, 11 and you can find more recent commentaries online.

A research project can go on for months or even years, and during this journey with all its ups and downs, it is possible to lose track of the research questions. Make it a point to always keep the research questions at the center of your project. One easy way to do this is to include them in status updates about your work to your team. This way, you can also gauge how far you have progressed toward answering the questions.

8. Writing: Don’t Wait Until the End

“A paper is not just an archival device for storing a completed research program; it is also a structure for planning your research in progress,” is the advice in a classic essay on scientific writing. 12 Consider using the “outline method” described in that essay to develop your paper.

If you want to learn the nuts and bolts of scientific writing, such as how to write the different sections of a paper or how to write effective sentences and paragraphs, you can find books, library guides, and online courses on this topic. But it can be difficult to get feedback on your own writing beyond what your research advisor offers. If your university has a writing center, do they offer feedback for research scholars? If you have a research mentor (see Tip 4), ask if they can give you feedback on your writing. If you do not have much support locally to improve your writing skills, look at the training or mentoring offerings from the AuthorAID project. 13 (Disclaimer: I work for this nonprofit project.)

When developing your paper, your target journal’s instructions for authors can be your friend or your enemy, depending on when you refer to these instructions and how seriously you follow them. Referring to these instructions only after you finish writing your paper will likely result in much frustration and lost time. Keep the instructions handy throughout your research-and-writing journey, and do not ignore anything in the instructions.

Finally, do not forget to cite as you write, making use of a reference management tool (see Tip 6). A good citation habit can be a bulwark against plagiarism. 14

9. Visuals: Master Tables and Figures

Tables and figures are crucial elements of scientific communication in many disciplines. Tables, well, present data in a tabular format. They can be complex, but figures are certainly more diverse: images obtained from scientific processes or equipment, diagrams of experimental setups, charts showing data, etc. A sustained reading of scientific papers (see Tip 6) will help you get a sense of how tables and figures are presented and how they are referred to in the text.

Designing effective figures can be especially challenging. Researchers in the biological sciences (and possibly other disciplines) will benefit from the large collection of articles on data visualization available on the Nature website. 15 Guidelines can also be found in style guides such as Scientific Style and Format 16 and in the instructions for authors given by journals.

Be careful to avoid image manipulation, a matter of increasing concern 17 and related to RCR (see Tip 5).

10. Peer Review: Keep Calm and Carry On

Once you have completed your research-and-writing journey and double-checked that your paper complies with your target journal’s instructions for authors, you will submit the paper and wait for the peer review process to run its course. (Rejection before peer review can happen, but let’s stay positive.) You should then be prepared to get a variety of comments from multiple peer reviewers. These comments can be minor, major, constructive, affirming, annoying, upsetting, disheartening … as you go through your research career, you will likely attach further adjectives.

Dealing with reviewers’ comments can sometimes be easy, and it can sometimes require not just much revision to your paper but also much tact in responding to the comments. The first thing to recognize is that the first author should not automatically be saddled with the bulk of the work. All the authors should be involved in this effort, taking responsibility for the part of the paper (and the related part of the research) in which they had a role to play.

Responding to reviewers’ comments is often the last mile to publication, and the going can get tough. You are not alone: the complexity and emotional toil of this stage is understood, and you can find advice online. 18

Closing Words

Your first significant publication is a milestone—and something you want to be proud of. I hope this primer is of some use in helping you get there.

References and Links

• Suiter AM, Sarli CC. Selecting a journal for publication: criteria to consider. Mo Med. 2019;116:461–465. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913840/ .
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html .
• Levin SP, Levin M. Managing ideas, people, and projects: organizational tools and strategies for researchers. iScience. 2019;20:278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.09.017 . 
• Nagy GA, Fang CM, Hish AJ, Kelly L, Nicchitta CV, Dzirasa K, Rosenthal MZ. Burnout and mental health problems in biomedical doctoral students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2019;18:ar27. https://doi.org/10.1187%2Fcbe.18-09-0198 .
• Wing JN, Schrag NJ, Smith AP. New NSF training requirement for faculty and senior researchers. Columbia Research. 2023. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://research.columbia.edu/news/new-nsf-training-requirement-faculty-and-senior-researchers .
• Steneck NH. Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. The Office of Research Integrity; 2007. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-introduction-responsible-conduct-research .
• Plavén-Sigray P, Matheson GJ, Schiffler BC, Thompson WH. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife. 2017;6:e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725 .
• Carey MA, Steiner KL, Jr WAP. Ten simple rules for reading a scientific paper. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020;16:e1008032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008032 .
• Pain E. How to (seriously) read a scientific paper. Science. 2016. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper .
• Lane Medical Library, Stanford Medicine. Why use reference management software? [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://laneguides.stanford.edu/reference-management/software .
• Kerr NL. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2:196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4 .
• Whitesides GM. Whitesides’ group: writing a paper. Adv Mater. 2004;16:1375–1377. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200400767 .
• Gastel B. AuthorAID and editors: collaborating to assist authors in developing countries. Sci Ed. 2015;38:103–105. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.csescienceeditor.org/article/authoraid-and-editors-collaborating-to-assist-authors-in-developing-countries/ .
• Penn Libraries, University of Pennsylvania. Citation practices and avoiding plagiarism: getting started. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://guides.library.upenn.edu/citationpractices/gettingstarted .
• Evanko D. Data visualization: a view of every Points of View column. Methagora: A Blog from Nature Methods. 2013. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://blogs.nature.com/methagora/2013/07/data-visualization-points-of-view.html .
• [CSE] Council of Science Editors. Scientific style and format. 8th ed. CSE; 2014. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.scientificstyleandformat.org .
• Marcus A, Oransky I. Image manipulation in science is suddenly in the news. But these cases are hardly rare. STAT. 2022. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/02/image-manipulation-in-science-is-suddenly-in-the-news-but-these-cases-are-hardly-rare/
• Parletta N. How to respond to difficult or negative peer-reviewer feedback. Nature Index. 2021. [accessed October 25, 2023]. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/how-to-respond-difficult-negative-peer-reviewer-feedback

Ravi Murugesan ( https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1898-0559 ) was once a bewildered research scholar, and he is now a freelance science editor with training responsibilities in the AuthorAID project.

Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Council of Science Editors or the Editorial Board of Science Editor.

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Digital Libraries

Title: every author as first author.

Abstract: We propose a new standard for writing author names on papers and in bibliographies, which places every author as a first author -- superimposed. This approach enables authors to write papers as true equals, without any advantage given to whoever's name happens to come first alphabetically (for example). We develop the technology for implementing this standard in LaTeX, BibTeX, and HTML; show several examples; and discuss further advantages.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

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
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors

Shubha singhal.

Department of Pharmacology, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, 110 002 India

Bhupinder Singh Kalra

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

Introduction

Need to publish.

A scientific paper is an organized description of hypothesis, data, and conclusions, intended to instruct the readers. Research conducted has to be published or documented; otherwise, it is considered not done. Publication of paper is critical for the evolution of modern science, in which the work of one scientist builds upon that of others [ 1 ]. The roots of scholarly, scientific publishing can be traced to 1665, when Henry Oldenburg of the British Royal Society established the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society . The aim of the journal was to create a public record of original contribution to knowledge and also to encourage scientists to “speak” directly to others [ 2 ]. Documentation of research work followed by publication helps in the dissemination of observations and findings. This flow of knowledge guides and contributes towards research coalition. Established and budding researchers do get benefited by published literature and consolidates their research.

Publication of research in peer-reviewed journal not only validates the research and boosts confidence of the authors but also gives national and international recognition to an author, department, university, and institution [ 3 ]. Unfortunately, in some establishments, the most compelling reason for publication is to fulfill specific job requirements by employers. It may include promotion to an academic position and improving prospects of success in research grant application. The importance of publication in the career is further emphasized by the adage “Publish or perish,” i.e. publish your research or lose your identity.

Ethics-related organizations and their role

A good research involves many coordinated steps. It starts from hypothesis, selection of appropriate study design, study execution, data collection, analysis, and finally publication. Not only the conduct of the study requires ethics to be adhered to but also the process of publication comes under the purview of ethics. Any publication that reports the results and draws the conclusion from the data which have been manipulated is considered research fraud or scientific misconduct [ 4 ]. Recently, Lancet retracted a study entitled “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” because the veracity of the data underlying this observational study could not be assured by the study authors [ 5 ].

There are organizations which give recommendations and develop guidelines to assist authors, editors, and reviewers. The purpose is to create and disseminate accurate, clear, reproducible, unbiased research papers. The organizations involved with publication ethics are

• International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE).
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

The ICMJE was established in 1978, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, by a group of medical journal editors. ICMJE developed recommendations which are primarily for authors who want to submit their work in ICMJE member journals. These recommendations discuss the role and responsibilities of the authors, contributors, reviewers, and editors. Steps of manuscript preparation, submission, and editorial issues related to publication in medical journals are also discussed and drafted. The uniform requirements for manuscript submitted to biomedical journals, which most of the journals are following were drafted by ICMJE [ 6 ].

The WAME is a nonprofit voluntary association, which was established in 1995 by a group of members of the ICMJE. The goal was to improve editorial standards, promote professionalism in medical editing, and encourage research on the principals and practice of medical editing. The role of WAME is to facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed medical journal. Membership in WAME is free and all decision-making editors of peer-reviewed journals are eligible to join. WAME has more than 1830 members representing more than 1000 journals from 92 countries [ 7 ].

The COPE also helps in ethical publication. COPE was founded in 1997 by a small number of UK medical editors as a self-help group to discuss troubling ethical cases in the publication process. It provides paid membership and currently has more than 7000 members in various disciplines from all parts of the world. The purpose of COPE is to find the practical ways to deal with the misconduct cases and to develop codes of conduct for good publication practice. It also generates the funding for the research based on the issues related to publication misconduct [ 8 ].

Process of publication

The scientific publication is a team effort. Transforming the research findings and observations into a published article is an art as well as science, which involves multiple steps. The very first step is the preparation of the manuscript as per the journal’s requirement. The language in which the manuscript has been drafted is important. It should be checked by an expert or native language speaker and the senior authors. Clear and concise language helps editors and reviewers to concentrate on the content. For up-to-date information, recent references should be cited. Final manuscript must be shared with all the authors and it should have approval of all the authors. Copyright transfer form should be signed by all the authors before submitting to the journal. Signing the copyright form brings responsibility.

Submitted manuscripts are first screened by the editors for its suitability, content, novelty, and what it adds to existing knowledge. The subject of research work should be synchronized with the target journal. It should comply with journal’s manuscript drafting guidelines. After the editorial screening, if some technical issues or non-adherence to manuscript guidelines are observed, it is sent back to the author for technical modifications. The peer review process gets initiated after technical modifications are acceptable. It may take a couple of weeks/months.

In light of reviewer’s recommendations, the editor sends the decision letter to the author mentioning the status of the manuscript, i.e. accepted, rejected, or requires revision. In case of revision, author(s) reply in detail to all comments of reviewers and submit to the journal again within stipulated time. After deliberation on replies and revised manuscript submitted, the editor decides for suitability of publication or if it needs to be sent out for review again. These steps get repeated until the manuscript is accepted or rejected. Once it gets accepted, it goes under proof read stage and finally gets published. The author is never in direct communication with the reviewer. He communicates with the Editorial board only. The reviewer should declare conflicts of interest (COI), if any, before reviewing the manuscript. Manuscripts are usually mailed to reviewers without information of the authors and their affiliations; hence, reviewers are blinded.

What is publishable or not publishable?

Writing for publication is an important yet challenging form of knowledge dissemination. Journals like to publish articles that present an exhaustive meaningful research. It should contribute towards the knowledge building and awareness of readers. At the very minimum, a publishable article needs to be original. It should be conducted and drafted with robust methodology and significant findings, well organized, well written, and concise yet clear. It should be drafted with clear explanation of how the article addresses the existing knowledge gap. Conclusion drawn should be relevant to the audience or readers with a comprehensive list of up-to-date references. Papers that are poorly organized, cluttered with unnecessary information, and consist of routine extension of previous reports or fragmentary reports of research results are not accepted for publication. Violation of ethical or legal norms, including plagiarism, duplicates publication lead to immediate rejection of the paper [ 9 ].

Scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of scientific research [ 10 ]. Misconduct in the scientific publication process by the authors is detrimental for integrity of the whole system and is considered unethical. Falsification or fabrication of data is the gravest form of scientific misconduct wherein authors either manipulate skewed data to look favorable or generate data where no data exists. Different forms of scientific misconduct are plagiarism or misappropriation of the ideas of others, improprieties of authorship, simultaneous publications, duplicate publications, salami slicing, and non-declaration of COI. Conducting research without informed consent or ethics approval and not maintaining data confidentiality is a form of scientific misconduct. Editors or publication houses do take disciplinary action as per COPE recommendations against scientific misconduct. Authors are blacklisted or banned to submit articles in the respective journal in the future [ 11 ].

Criteria of authorship

Academic life revolves around publications. The publication adds to the credibility of the research and brings fame and recognition. An author is an individual who fulfills enlisted criteria collectively: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design; (2) acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Individuals who have provided technical services/translating text/identifying patients for study/supplying material/providing funds/applied statistics/medical writers are not eligible for authorship. However, all those contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgement section [ 12 , 13 ]. Because of the important role of publication in clinical practice and academic setting, the authorship of articles must be honest, reliable, trustworthy, and transparent.

Types of authors

Since authorship is sought after, many unethical practices are also prevalent. Ghost, guest, or gift authors are the examples of such practices. A ghost author is a person who has made a substantial contribution to the research or writing of a manuscript but is not listed as an author. A ghost author might be a direct employee or hired contract employee of pharmaceutical company and hence, listing him as an author amounts to COI [ 14 ]. It is dishonest to omit an author who has made significant contributions. In contrast to ghost author, guest or gift/honorary author is someone who is named as an author, but who did not contribute in a meaningful way to the design, research, analysis, or writing of a paper. Often guest or gift authors are well known and well respected in the field of research. The inclusion of their name in the author list might increase chances of acceptance for publication.

However, sometimes senior investigators may also give honorary authorship to their colleagues for encouraging collaborations and maintaining good working relations or as repayment of favors. Whatever the cause, the gift or guest authorship is an unacceptable practice in publication. The presence of well-known author on the board as a guest author can influence the opinion of clinicians, academicians, and politicians about a particular drug or device. Secondly, due to gift authorship, the person is perceived as being more skilled than his colleague who has not published [ 12 , 13 ]. In multicenter trials, since investigators from different sites have contributed, they qualify for the authorship and all those who qualify for authorship should be listed [ 15 ]. One should always remember that authorship brings responsibility and authors have to be accountable to the data and results which are published.

Authorship issues/disputes

Authorship issues or disputes account for 2% to 11% of all disagreement in the scientific community. The authorship disputes could range from order of authorship, inclusion or exclusion of authors, number of authors etc. Request for addition of authors after submission or even after publication is quite common. In contrast, there are examples where a co-author denies becoming a part of a manuscript, once any scientific misconduct including plagiarism is detected [ 16 ].

The order of authorship should be mutually decided before taking up the study. It has to be a joint decision of all co-authors. In multicenter trials, research group includes large number of researchers. Hence, the corresponding author specifies and registers the group name and clearly identifies the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as an author.

ICMJE and other organizations issued the guidelines regarding group authorship and stated that in case of group authorship the byline of the article identifies who is directly responsible for the manuscript, and MEDLINE lists as authors. If the byline includes a group name, MEDLINE will list the names of individual group members who are authors or who are collaborators [ 17 ]. Despite these guidelines, authorship battles for inappropriate attribution of credit are witnessed in this area also.

Usually, the dispute is for the “First author” place because most of the articles are cited by the name of the first author. Conventionally, the extent of involvement decides the order of authorship; for example, the person who has done the majority of the groundwork would be considered eligible for being the first author (junior researcher) and the person who planned and conceived the study would be the last author (supervisor). There is no general consensus in order of authorship, and there are different schools of thoughts [ 16 ]. During submission of revised manuscript, order of authorship should not be altered without any justification. Approval from all authors is warranted in case of revision of order of authorship. It affects the credibility of manuscript too.

How to resolve authorship issues

The best way to prevent disputes in authorship is to generate awareness among research groups about authorship criteria and to develop Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the conduct and publication of research. COPE guidelines are to be referred in case of authorship or conflicts [ 18 ]. The next best option to prevent disputes is to have open discussion among all the authors involved in multidisciplinary research prior to initiating research, i.e. at the time of protocol drafting. Defining the role and responsibility of each author further reduces the chances of disputes within the research team. Editors do ask for individual contributions of authors in designing manuscript. The journal can blacklist guest or ghost authors [ 12 ].

Plagiarism: do’s and don’ts

The word plagiarism was first used in the English language in the year 1601 by the dramatist Ben Jonson to describe someone who was guilty of theft. Plagiarism is derived from the Latin word “plagiare” which means to “kidnap.” A plagiarist is the person who commits plagiarism [ 19 ]. By definition, plagiarism is the use of previously published work by another author in one’s own manuscript without consent, credit, or acknowledgement. It is the most common form of scientific misconduct [ 4 ]. Plagiarism can be intentional or unintentional. Unintentional plagiarism is usually seen in articles written by students or junior researchers. Lack of awareness and ignorance lead to unintentional plagiarism. Intentional plagiarism happens when an author deliberately copies documented or published work and presents it as his/her own. Both types of plagiarism are unethical and illegal, which can ruin the career and reputation of the writer [ 19 ].

Plagiarism of idea occurs when a plagiarist copies or steals the idea or thought of someone else and presents it as his/her own. Such type of plagiarism is difficult to detect; however, once detected, it is considered serious offense. The example of plagiarism of idea is presenting or documenting an idea of someone else which is being discussed or presented in any conference or seminar without citing proper sources. Plagiarism of text or direct plagiarism, i.e. word to word writing, is when a researcher takes large section of an article from another source and pastes it in his/her own research without providing proper citation. One of the hybrid varieties of plagiarism is Mosaic plagiarism where the author steals the idea, opinion, words, and phrases from different sources and merges words without acknowledging the original author.

Self-plagiarism is the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in their subsequent publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. There is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one’s own words one can use before it is truly “plagiarism.” To be on the safer side, authors should cite source or give reference of their previous publications. There are examples in which plagiarism engulfed the entire career of authors and writers and it became the reason of article retraction or rejection [ 20 ].

Culture of publish or perish is one of the important causes of plagiarism. The researcher needs to publish a large number of papers in limited time period to get more opportunities in career and research. In addition, lack of knowledge, laziness, and fear of failure and desire of getting recognition also lead to plagiarism. Many softwares, which can detect plagiarism are available online. It is the responsibility of the author to run their manuscript through software before submitting it to the journal [ 19 , 21 ].

The very first step to prevent plagiarism is the awareness about plagiarism, the consequences, and how to avoid plagiarism. Authors can avoid plagiarism by acknowledging the original source of the idea or word and enclosing them within quotation marks. In case of paraphrasing, where the writer writes the text in his own word, authors must properly cite the original source. Authors must always obtain permission for use of published illustration. Authors should avoid writing multiple separate articles if he can present a large, complex study in a cohesive manner in a single article [ 21 ].

Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest is an attribute which is invisible to the reader or editor, but which may affect or influence his or her judgment or objectivity. Academicians/physicians and researchers often work in collaboration with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop a product for the well-being of society. However, there are examples where financial and non-financial ties of researches or physicians with the company have compromised the integrity of research [ 22 ].

Conflict of interest describes the situations where the impartiality of the research may be compromised because the researcher stands to profit in some way from the conclusions they draw [ 23 ]. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include research grants from funding agencies, honorarium for speaking at symposium, financial support for educational programs, employment, and multiple affiliations. In addition, non-financial benefits including recognition, career advancement, advocacy for a strongly held position, and support for friends and colleagues can also affect the research work and result biases in the research. These biases, when hidden, can affect clinical decision-making by making interventions appear safer or more effective than they really are [ 24 ].

Disclosure of COI is the basic requirement to prevent attribution-related bias in the research. The ICMJE has produced a common form to disclose any COI and that has to be individually signed by each co-author. It has to be uploaded along with the manuscript files. The intent of the disclosure form is not to prevent authors with a potential COI from publication. It is merely intended that any potential conflict should be declared so that the readers may form their own judgment about the findings and observations. It is for the readers to determine whether the authors outside interest may reflect a possible bias in either the exposition of the conclusions presented [ 25 ]. Authors are supposed to declare COI in the manuscript text too which is meant for readers.

Duplicate publication

Duplicate publication or redundant publication is a publication of a paper that substantially overlaps with one which is already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication [ 26 ]. As per copyright law and publication ethics, whatever is available in the journal for reading would be original unless there is a clear statement that the author and editor are intentionally republishing an article. Hence, duplication of publication is the breach in the copyright law and against the ethical conduct. In addition, duplication of publication causes waste of limited resources and also leads to inappropriate weighting of the result of a single study. It was observed that duplicate publications of Ondansetron led to overestimation of its efficacy by 23% in one of the meta-analyses [ 26 , 27 ].

The COPE classifies duplicate publication into major and minor offenses. The major offense is the one where duplicate publication is based on the same data set and findings which are already published. It is also considered if there is evidence that the author tried to hide duplication by changing the title or order of authorship or by not referring previous publication [ 28 ]. Minor or salami slicing is considered segmental publication or part publication of results or reanalysis derived from a single study. Authors do it to increase the number of publications and citations. It is considered unethical and it is taken in a bad taste because for a reader it may cause distortion in the conclusions drawn. Publication of the results of a single study in parts in different journals might lead to over-judgement. Wrong conclusions may be drawn from a study if it is done on a fixed number of subjects but the data are being presented in fragments in different journals.

When an author needs to submit a report that has been already published or closely related to another paper that has been submitted elsewhere, the letter of submission should clearly say so. The authors should declare and provide copies of the related submission to help the editor decide how to handle the submission. Authors who attempt to duplicate publication without such notification can face prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript. If the editor was not aware of the violations and the article has already been published, then the article might warrant retraction with or without the author’s explanation or approval.

Duplicate publication does not prevent the author to disseminate important public health information in case of public health emergency. In fact, ICMJE encourages editors to give priority to authors who have made crucial data publicly available without delay [ 26 ]. Duplicate publications are justified if it is about combined editorials, clinical guidelines, and translation of archives.

Predatory publishing

Predatory publishing is the publication of an article in the journal that lacks the usual feature of editorial oversight, transparent policies, and operating procedure of legitimate peer review journals. Predatory journals exploit the authors by charging the publication fee and deceiving them by providing the false claim about the journal’s impact factor, indexing, and peer review [ 29 ].

Predatory publishing is harmful for both the author and the community. Predatory publishing may tarnish the image of the author. Articles published in predatory journals are usually not appreciated by the subject expert. It can misinform the readers and propagate wrong science because of poor quality control. Sometimes genuine information also gets missed because most of the predatory journals are not indexed in the database, so papers are not easily traceable [ 30 ].

Predatory publishing can be avoided by educating researchers, supervisors, and administrators about fake journals. Authors should also learn how to identify trustworthy journals. If the journal website mentions of indexing, then it is important to cross check the inclusion of the journal in the mentioned databases. For an open-access journal, the inclusion in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) can be checked at the DOAJ website. The journal’s claim of the Journal Citation Report (JCR) impact factor can be verified by its International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) number in the JCR Master list. Another approach to check trustworthy journals is to self-asses the journal through websites like https://thinkchecksubmit.org/ [ 30 ].

Responsibility of author

Authorship is not just a list of names. It is the matter of pride that has to be deserved, earned, and declared [ 15 ]. To maintain the integrity and credibility of medical research and to nourish the trust of public in scientific endeavors, all authors must follow the rules of good scientific publication practice and should stick to the following responsibilities (Table ​ (Table1 1 ):

• Do not fabricate or manipulate the data
• Avoid plagiarism and give proper acknowledgment to other works
• Decide the order of authorship prior to writing the paper to avoid future conflicts
• Declare whether research work has been published or presented before
• Declare COI
• Avoid ghost/gift/guest authorship
• Do not submit the manuscript to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration
• Take approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee before conducting research
• Last but not the least, take direct responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

Role and responsibilities of author

COI conflict of interest, CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, ARRIVE Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments, CTRI Clinical Trials Registry - India

Awareness of good publication practices should be generated among novice authors to prevent unethical practices in publication of scientific research. Each institute or department should resort to COPE or ICMJE recommendations for publications and draft their own SOP for authors who are actively involved in research. Unethical practices on the part of the authors or scientific misconduct should be discouraged and addressed by appropriate training and guidance.

Compliance with ethical standards

SS, and BSK declare that they have no conflict of interest.

The authors are solely responsible for the data and the contents of the paper. In no way, the Honorary Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology or the printer/publishers are responsible for the results/findings and content of this article.

Publisher’s note

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

New paper by Bilge Erten published in ReStat

The paper Trade-offs? The Impact of WTO Accession on Intimate Partner Violence in Cambodia by Bilge Erten and Pinar Keskin has been published in the Review of Economics and Statistics . This paper demonstrates that trade-induced employment changes triggered intimate partner violence.

Link to paper

The Review of Economics and Statistics  (2024) 106 (2): 322–333.

We study the impact of trade-induced changes in labor market conditions on violence within the household. We exploit the local labor demand shocks generated by Cambodia’s WTO accession to assess how changes in the employment of women relative to men affected the risk of intimate partner violence. We document that men in districts facing larger tariff reductions experienced a significant decline in paid employment, whereas women in harder-hit districts increased their entry into the labor force. These changes in employment patterns triggered backlash effects by increasing intimate partner violence, without changes in marriage, fertility, psychological distress, or household consumption.

About the Authors

Bilge Erten

Associate professor of economics and international affairs.

Bilge Erten is an Associate Professor of Economics and International Affairs and a Faculty Scholar at the Institute for Health Equity and Social Justice Research at Northeastern University. She is a Visiting Associate Professor at the Institute for E…

Pinar Keskin

Associate professor of economics. wellesley college.

Pinar Keskin is an applied microeconomist, with research interests in development, environmental and health economics.

More Stories

Nu students to compete in the final six of the fiscal challenge, 2024 gap workshop: bridging research and policy.

Madhavi Venkatesan named Massachusetts Woman of the Year

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Top Israeli spy chief exposes his true identity in online security lapse

Exclusive: Yossi Sariel unmasked as head of Unit 8200 and architect of AI strategy after book written under pen name reveals his Google account

The identity of the commander of Israel’s Unit 8200 is a closely guarded secret. He occupies one of the most sensitive roles in the military, leading one of the world’s most powerful surveillance agencies, comparable to the US National Security Agency.

Yet after spending more than two decades operating in the shadows, the Guardian can reveal how the controversial spy chief – whose name is Yossi Sariel – has left his identity exposed online.

The embarrassing security lapse is linked to a book he published on Amazon, which left a digital trail to a private Google account created in his name, along with his unique ID and links to the account’s maps and calendar profiles.

The Guardian has confirmed with multiple sources that Sariel is the secret author of The Human Machine Team, a book in which he offers a radical vision for how artificial intelligence can transform the relationship between military personnel and machines.

Published in 2021 using a pen name composed of his initials, Brigadier General YS, it provides a blueprint for the advanced AI-powered systems that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been pioneering during the six-month war in Gaza .

An electronic version of the book included an anonymous email address that can easily be traced to Sariel’s name and Google account. Contacted by the Guardian, an IDF spokesperson said the email address was not Sariel’s personal one, but “dedicated specifically for issues to do with the book itself”.

Later on Friday, in a statement to the Israeli media, the IDF described the book’s exposure of Sariel’s personal details as “a mistake”, adding: “The issue will be examined to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future.”

The security blunder is likely to place further pressure on Sariel, who is said to “live and breathe” intelligence but whose tenure running the IDF’s elite cyber intelligence division has become mired in controversy.

Unit 8200, once revered within Israel and beyond for intelligence capabilities that rivalled those of the UK’s GCHQ, is thought to have built a vast surveillance apparatus to closely monitor the Palestinian territories .

However, it has been criticised over its failure to foresee and prevent Hamas’s deadly 7 October assault last year on southern Israel, in which Palestinian militants killed nearly 1,200 Israelis and kidnapped about 240 people.

Since the Hamas-led attacks, there have been accusations that Unit 8200’s “technological hubris” came at the expense of more conventional intelligence-gathering techniques.

In its war in Gaza, the IDF appears to have fully embraced Sariel’s vision of the future, in which military technology represents a new frontier where AI is being used to fulfil increasingly complex tasks on the battlefield.

Sariel argued in the published book three years ago that his ideas about using machine learning to transform modern warfare should become mainstream. “We just need to take them from the periphery and deliver them to the centre of the stage,” he wrote.

One section of the book heralds the concept of an AI-powered “targets machine”, descriptions of which closely resemble the target recommendation systems the IDF is now known have been relying upon in its bombardment of Gaza .

Over the last six months, the IDF has deployed multiple AI-powered decision support systems that have been rapidly developed and refined by Unit 8200 under Sariel’s leadership.

They include the Gospel and Lavender , two target recommendation systems that have been revealed in reports by the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 magazine , its Hebrew-language outlet Local Call and the Guardian.

The IDF says its AI systems are intended to assist human intelligence officers, who are required to verify that military suspects are legitimate targets under international law. A spokesperson said the military used “various types of tools and methods”, adding: “Evidently, there are tools that exist in order to benefit intelligence researchers that are based on artificial intelligence.”

Targets machine

On Wednesday, +972 and Local Call placed the spotlight on the link between Unit 8200 and the book authored by a mysteriously named Brigadier General YS .

Sariel is understood to have written the book with the IDF’s permission after a year as a visiting researcher at the US National Defense University in Washington DC, where he made the case for using AI to transform modern warfare.

Aimed at high-ranking military commanders and security officials, the book articulates a “human-machine teaming” concept that seeks to achieve synergy between humans and AI, rather than constructing fully autonomous systems.

It reflects Sariel’s ambition to become a “thought leader”, according to one former intelligence official. In the 2000s, he was a leading member of a group of academically minded spies known as “the Choir”, which agitated for an overhaul of Israeli intelligence practices.

An Israeli press report suggests that by 2017 he was head of intelligence for the IDF’s central command. His subsequent elevation to commander of Unit 8200 amounted to an endorsement by the military establishment of his technological vision for the future.

Sariel refers in the book to “a revolution” in recent years within the IDF, which has “developed a new concept of intelligence centric warfare to connect intelligence to the fighters in the field”. He advocates going further still, fully merging intelligence and warfare, in particular when conducting lethal targeting operations.

In one chapter of the book, he provides a template for how to construct an effective targets machine drawing on “big data” that a human brain could not process. “The machine needs enough data regarding the battlefield, the population, visual information, cellular data, social media connections, pictures, cellphone contacts,” he writes. “The more data and the more varied it is, the better.”

Such a targets machine, he said, would draw on complex models that make predictions built “on lots of small, diverse features”, listing examples such as “people who are with a Hezbollah member in a WhatsApp group, people who get new cellphones every few months, those who change their addresses frequently”.

He argues that using AI to create potential military targets can be more efficient and avoid “bottlenecks” created by intelligence officials or soldiers. “There is a human bottleneck for both locating the new targets and decision-making to approve the targets. There is also the bottleneck of how to process a great amount of data. Then there is the bottleneck of connecting the intelligence to the fire.” He adds: “A team consisting of machines and investigators can blast the bottleneck wide open.”

Intelligence divide

Disclosure of Sariel’s security lapse comes at a difficult time for the intelligence boss. In February, he came under public scrutiny in Israel when the Israeli newspaper Maariv published an account of recriminations within Unit 8200 after the 7 October attacks.

Sariel was not named in the article, which referred to Unit 8200’s commander only as “Y”. However, the rare public criticism brought into focus a divide within Israel’s intelligence community over its biggest failure in a generation.

Sariel’s critics, the report said, believe Unit 8200’s prioritisation of “addictive and exciting” technology over more old-fashioned intelligence methods had led to the disaster. One veteran official told the newspaper the unit under Sariel had “followed the new intelligence bubble”.

For his part, Sariel is quoted as telling colleagues that 7 October will “haunt him” until his last day. “I accept responsibility for what happened in the most profound sense of the word,” he said. “We were defeated. I was defeated.”

• Israel-Gaza war
• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Middle East and north Africa
• Palestinian territories

Most viewed

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
• 25 March 2024
• Correction 27 March 2024

Weird new electron behaviour in stacked graphene thrills physicists

• Dan Garisto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Electrons in stacked sheets of staggered graphene collectively act as though they have fractional charges at ultralow temperatures. Credit: Ramon Andrade 3DCiencia/Science Photo Library

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Last May, a team led by physicists at the University of Washington in Seattle observed something peculiar. When the scientists ran an electrical current across two atom-thin sheets of molybdenum ditelluride (MoTe 2 ), the electrons acted in concert, like particles with fractional charges. Resistance measurements showed that, rather than the usual charge of –1, the electrons behaved similar to particles with charges of –2/3 or –3/5, for instance. What was truly odd was that the electrons did this entirely because of the innate properties of the material, without any external magnetic field coaxing them. The researchers published the results a few months later, in August 1 .

Strange topological materials are popping up everywhere physicists look

The same month, this phenomenon, known as the fractional quantum anomalous Hall effect (FQAHE), was also observed in a completely different material. Researchers led by Long Ju, a condensed-matter physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, saw the effect when they sandwiched five layers of graphene between sheets of boron nitride. They published their results in February this year 2 — and physicists are still buzzing about it.

At the American Physical Society (APS) March Meeting, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from 3 to 8 March, Ju presented the team’s findings, which haven’t yet been replicated by other researchers. Attendees, including Raquel Queiroz, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University in New York City, said that they thought the results were convincing, but were scratching their heads over the discovery. “There is a lot we don’t understand,” Queiroz says. Figuring out the exact mechanism of the FQAHE in the layered graphene will be “a lot of work ahead of theorists”, she adds.

Although the FQAHE might have practical applications down the line — fractionally charged particles are a key requirement for a certain type of quantum computer — the findings are capturing physicists’ imagination because they are fundamentally new discoveries about how electrons behave.

“I don’t know anyone who’s not excited about this,” says Pablo Jarillo-Herrero, a condensed-matter physicist at MIT who was not involved with the studies. “I think the question is whether you’re so excited that you switch all your research and start working on it, or if you’re just very excited.”

Strange maths

Strange behaviour by electrons isn’t new.

In some materials, usually at temperatures near absolute zero, electrical resistance becomes quantized. Specifically, it’s the material’s transverse resistance that does this. (An electrical current encounters opposition to its flow in both the same direction as the current — called longitudinal resistance — and in the perpendicular direction — what’s called transverse resistance.)

Quantized ‘steps’ in the transverse resistance occur at integer multiples of electron charge: 1, 2, 3 and so on. These plateaus are the result of a strange phenomenon: the electrons maintain the same transverse resistance even as charge density increases. That’s a little like vehicles on a road moving at the same speed, even with more traffic. This is known as the quantum Hall effect.

In a different set of materials, with less disorder, the transverse resistance can even display plateaus at fractions of electron charge: 2/5, 3/7 and 4/9, for example. The plateaus take these values because the electrons collectively act like particles with fractional charges — hence the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE).

Key to both phenomena is a strong external magnetic field, which prevents electrons from crashing into each other and enables them to interact.

(Left to right) Long Ju, Zhengguang Lu, Yuxuan Yao and Tonghang Han are all part of the team at MIT that demonstrated the fractional quantum anomalous Hall effect in layered graphene. Credit: Jixiang Yang

The FQHE, discovered in 1982, revealed the richness of electron behaviour. No longer could physicists think of electrons as single particles; in delicate quantum arrangements, the electrons could lose their individuality and act together to create fractionally charged particles. “I think people don’t appreciate how different [the fractional] is from the integer quantum Hall effect,” says Ashvin Vishwanath, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University in Cambridge. “It’s a new world.”

Over the next few decades, theoretical physicists came up with models to explain the FQHE and predict its effects. During their exploration, a tantalizing possibility appeared: perhaps a material could exhibit resistance plateaus without any external magnetic field. The effect, now dubbed the quantum anomalous Hall effect — ‘anomalous’, for the lack of a magnetic field — was finally observed in thin ferromagnetic films by a team at Tsinghua University in Beijing, in 2012 3 .

Carbon copy

Roughly a decade later, the University of Washington team reported the FQAHE for the first time 1 , in a specially designed 2D material: two sheets of MoTe 2 stacked on top of one another and offset by a twist.

This arrangement of MoTe 2 is known as a moiré material. Originally used to refer to a patterned textile, the term has been appropriated by physicists to describe the patterns in 2D materials created from atom-thin lattices when they are stacked and then twisted, or staggered atop one another. The slight offset between atoms in different layers of the material shifts the hills and valleys of its electric potential. And it effectively acts like a powerful magnetic field, taking the place of the one needed in the quantum Hall effect and the FQHE.

Xiaodong Xu, a condensed-matter physicist at the University of Washington, talked about the MoTe 2 discovery at the APS meeting. Theory hinted that the FQAHE would appear in the material at about a 1.4º twist angle. “We spent a year on it, and we didn’t see anything,” Xu told Nature .

Source: Adapted from Ref. 2.

Then, the researchers tried a larger angle — a twist of about 4º. Immediately, they began seeing signs of the effect. Eventually, they measured the electrical resistance and spotted the signature plateaus of the FQAHE. Soon afterwards, a team led by researchers at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China replicated the results 4 .

Meanwhile, at MIT, Ju was perfecting his technique, sandwiching graphene between layers of boron nitride. Similar to graphene, the sheets of boron nitride that Ju’s team used were a mesh of atoms linked together in a hexagonal pattern. The material’s lattice has a slightly different size from graphene’s; the mismatch creates a moiré pattern (see ‘Anomalous behaviour’).

Last month, Ju published a report 2 about seeing the characteristic plateaus. “It is a really amazing result,” Xu says. “I'm very happy to see there’s a second system.” Since then, Ju says, he’s also seen the effect when using four and six layers of graphene.

Both moiré systems have their pros and cons. MoTe 2 exhibited the effect at a few kelvin, as opposed to 0.1 kelvin for the layered graphene sandwich. (Low temperatures are required to minimize disorder in the systems.) But graphene is a cleaner and higher-quality material that is easier to measure. Experimentalists are now trying to replicate the results in graphene and find other materials that behave similarly.

Moiré than bargained for

Theorists are relatively comfortable with the MoTe 2 results, for which the FQAHE was partly predicted. But Ju’s layered graphene moiré was a shock to the community, and researchers are still struggling to explain how the effect happens. “There’s no universal consensus on what the correct theory is,” Vishwanath says. “But they all agree that it’s not the standard mechanism.” Vishwanath and his colleagues posted a preprint proposing a theory that the moiré pattern might not be that important to the FQAHE 5 .

Welcome anyons! Physicists find best evidence yet for long-sought 2D structures

One reason to doubt the importance of the moiré is the location of the electrons in the material: most of the activity is in the topmost layer of graphene, far away from the moiré pattern between the graphene and boron nitride at the bottom of the sandwich that is supposed to most strongly influence the electrons. But B. Andrei Bernevig, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and a co-author of another preprint proposing a mechanism for the FQAHE in the layered graphene 6 , urges caution about theory-based calculations, because they rely on currently unverified assumptions. He says that the moiré pattern probably matters, but less than it does in MoTe 2 .

For theorists, the uncertainty is exciting. “There are people who would say that everything has been seen in the quantum Hall effect,” Vishwanath says. But these experiments, especially the one using the layered graphene moiré, show that there are still more mysteries to uncover.

Nature 628 , 16-17 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00832-z

Updates & Corrections

Correction 27 March 2024 : An earlier version of this story spelled researcher Tonghang Han’s name incorrectly in the photo caption.

Park, H. et al. Nature 622 , 74–79 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lu, Z. et al. Nature 626 , 759–764 (2024).

Chang, C.-Z. et al. Science 340 , 167–170 (2013).

Xu, F. et al. Phys. Rev. X 13 , 031037 (2023).

Article   Google Scholar  

Dong, J. et al. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.05568 (2023).

Kwan, Y. H. et al. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.11617 (2023).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Materials science

Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results

News 06 APR 24

Phase-change memory via a phase-changeable self-confined nano-filament

Article 03 APR 24

Shell buckling for programmable metafluids

Heat flows enrich prebiotic building blocks and enhance their reactivity

An optical tweezer array of ultracold polyatomic molecules

POSTDOCTORAL Fellow -- DEPARTMENT OF Surgery – BIDMC, Harvard Medical School

The Division of Urologic Surgery in the Department of Surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School invites applicatio...

Boston, Massachusetts (US)

Director of Research

Applications are invited for the post of Director of Research at Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (IN)

Cancer Institute (W.I.A)

Postdoctoral Fellow in Human Immunology (wet lab)

Join Atomic Lab in Boston as a postdoc in human immunology for universal flu vaccine project. Expertise in cytometry, cell sorting, scRNAseq.

Boston University Atomic Lab

Research Associate - Neuroscience and Respiratory Physiology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Histology Laboratory Manager

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