I'm talking in the context where alphabetical author listing is not applied. Some corresponding authors put themselves in the middle of the author list, what is the logic behind this? This happens often when a more senior author (than the corresponding author) is the put in the last position, but who is not a corresponding author.
5
-
10"This happens often when a more senior author (than the corresponding author) is the put in the last position, but who is not a corresponding author." Isn’t that an answer to your question already?– MisterMiyagiCommented Sep 19 at 4:45
-
another reason might be that the first author will leave the institution soon and will not be reachable by their department email adress.– SursulaCommented Sep 19 at 6:26
-
1academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4473/197929, second bullet point?– UJMCommented Sep 19 at 7:50
-
1@MisterMiyagi I think that's more of a phenomenon than an answer.– feynmanCommented Sep 20 at 10:33
-
@feynman I don’t see why. The ordering "most senior last" seems like a perfectly valid ordering - which means the corresponding author isn’t necessarily last.– MisterMiyagiCommented Sep 20 at 10:46
Add a comment
|
4 Answers
One potential answer is the existence of "transformative agreements" between some institutions and some publishers. Part of these agreements is often that authors from these institutions do not pay (individually) to publish their work as open access in the publisher's journals. Often the eligibility of a manuscript under these agreements is determined by the affiliation of the corresponding author.
Consequently, a group of authors may decide to make the collaborator with access to one of these agreements the corresponding author (especially in fields where no particular prestige is associated with the status of "corresponding author").
-
1Yes, even in fields where the author ordering is based on contribution and/or seniority, corresponding author is often based on unrelated practical considerations, of which this is an important example. Commented Sep 19 at 8:33
-
1
-
-
@feynman because the last author is the senior author, and if the corresponding author is not the senior author, they aren't going to be listed last. Commented Sep 20 at 15:55
-
@feynman Were they a PI or supervisor of the project? If not, then they conventionally wouldn't get the coveted last author spot. But if the corresponding author asterisk isn't worth much to the last author (sometimes all it gives you is more spam emails...), why not give it to an author working in a context where it's valued?– AnyonCommented Sep 20 at 19:37
Corresponding author is a job, not an honor. Authors can choose the most relevant person to handle inquiries about the paper. This is the PI in some fields, where the research is done under the direction of such a person and is the logical choice.
It is also common in such fields for the PI to be listed on most papers produced by the group, even when their direct participation in the individual paper is small (or even nonexistent).
So Corresponding Author as last author is just the intersection of those two common practices.
But the authors of a paper are free to choose the person they feel best able to handle those inquiries and they are also free to choose author order. So, across different fields and different traditions you will find a variety of things. Don't make assumptions. The two ideas are actually independent, even if they intersect in many cases.
-
1Yes, looking at some of mine over the years we have a real mix (applied physics). The corresponding author might be the first author (even if a postgrad), the first author's PI, the PI of the lead group on the grant, etc. Some journals are now grouping authors by institution (Phys. Rev. Res. for example) which does even strange things to ideas around the relative importance of authors– Chris HCommented Sep 20 at 14:09
The convention in my field is the PI is the corresponding author and last on the author list. When there are multiple corresponding authors because of a collaboration, as is often the case, it is generally understood that the one listed last has the most authority over the project (typically their group spearheaded it).
At least in my field, when I have encountered a scenario of the lead PI not being the last author (when the last author was not even listed as corresponding "*") it was typically due to a deference to authority. My postdoctoral advisor was a huge figure in multiple fields. He would however collaborate generously, providing resources and contributing to the writing of manuscripts with earlier-career faculty. He would often decline any corresponding author status, but the others would often place him last on the list anyway as a sign of respect.
-
So this kind of respect does exist as I guessed, assuming that the last person is the authority regardless of whether they are the corresponding author. Or could it be for another reason: when no asterisk is used for the corresponding author, then the last author is assumed to be the corresponding author, then the last author in this case benefits from this?– feynmanCommented Sep 20 at 10:38
-
@feynman "benefits" is a loaded word. At the time, my advisor was pushing 1000 publications (regularly in Science and Nature) and vying for Kavli/Wolf/Nobel. The only benefit is I guess my advisor felt good that he was appreciated by his collaborators. I think on his end inclusion on the paper was only a means to justify grant resources in support of the project, and less so on the personal gain end of things. I am so far off (currently mid-career, 6 figure papers, no global prizes on the horizon now or likely ever) where he was at that point that I really can't speak to his perspective on it.– R1NaNoCommented Sep 20 at 13:32
-
R1NaNo if your advisor funded the paper, why wasn't he the corresponding author or even one of the co-corresponding– feynmanCommented Sep 23 at 7:14
-
1@feynman largely because he did not want to detract from the amount of credit the younger collaborator would get for that paper.– R1NaNoCommented Sep 23 at 12:38
I'm pretty sure in physics & engineering, authors are listed by contribution. The first author does more work than the second author, who does more work than the third author, and so on.
Therefore, the question is kind of moot. The author order is fixed, the only question is who the most appropriate corresponding author is. Quite often that's the PI, because they're the most "static" person who can be expected to be working on similar problems for a long time. But it doesn't have to be: since the first author did most of the work, they're also the person best-positioned to answer questions on it (at least in the short term). In the end it's a question for the authors to decide.
