5

Recently I have published a paper with my adviser and, although I was the main contributor, for some issues with our university my adviser became the first author (Seemingly, he couldn't get any credit from the paper if he was named as second author). I mean, there was no doubt or conflict between us about me being the first author.

Now, I want to submit a preprint of the paper to arXiv. I was wondering if I can name myself as the first author in the arXiv submission. My adviser is OK with this, but I wanted to know that:

  • Is it acceptable according to arXiv's rules?

  • Can I somehow show my real first authorship by doing this?

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    Instead, you should mention These authors contributed equally to this work immediately under the address list (for example, see this instruction from Nature). Do this on BOTH arXiv and journal version. Swapping order between versions will result in confusion, not - extra credit.
    – Piotr Migdal
    Commented Nov 8, 2014 at 23:19
  • @PiotrMigdal The paper is published now. I wanted to do this just after it got accepted, but I though it was a bad idea for me (to write both authors contributed equally), because I contributed way more than my advisor!
    – Mostafa
    Commented Nov 8, 2014 at 23:24
  • 1
    If you contributed more but are second author, it means: you will receive much less credit for your work than 50% AND that your advisor did it against academic ethics (unless he genuinely considered him being as the main or equal contributor; or perhaps unless you voluntarily waived your first authorship).
    – Piotr Migdal
    Commented Nov 9, 2014 at 10:42
  • It could be that he is circumventing some restriction, which was imposed by the university to see if staff members have also other papers than just those mainly done by their students. In that case the reordering wold be dishonest.
    – Vladimir F Героям слава
    Commented Nov 9, 2014 at 11:55
  • 1
    @PiotrMigdal Actually, I don't see the OP waiving his first-authorship as something that would make this ethical. One cannot ethically change the order of authors when it is supposed to be ordered by contribution, even if the authors agree.
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Commented Nov 11, 2014 at 8:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
18

I don't think there are any rules against having a different author ordering on the arXiv version, but I'd recommend against trying this. The author ordering on the published paper would be regarded as "official", and doing things differently on the arXiv would certainly not be considered to demonstrate the real first authorship. Instead, it could easily be misinterpreted:

  1. People may assume you were careless about author ordering in submitting to the arXiv, which wouldn't be good for your reputation.

  2. Worse yet, they may assume you were dishonestly changing the author ordering, which would be a disaster for your reputation.

  3. The best case scenario is that they would assume the author order changed between the preprint and the published paper, because the authors changed their minds about who should be listed first.

The only way to avoid these dangers would be to add an explicit note explaining the change, but I assume that's out of the question. After all, if you deserve to be first author on the arXiv paper, then you should have been first author on the published paper as well, so such a note would just raise ethical questions about the published authorship.

It sounds like you should have been first author all along, since author ordering should not be determined based on how much credit the university gives. If it is still possible to fix the author ordering before publication, that could be the best approach, but the arXiv is not a good way to fix it after the fact.

Improve this answer
4
  • 6
    +1 for "author ordering should not be determined based on how much credit the university gives"
    – JeffE
    Commented Nov 9, 2014 at 0:32
  • Thanks. How about this: in my resume where I have mentioned this paper, I have written the following sentence in a footnote (referring to my name): main contributor (contact the corresponding author if needed)
    – Mostafa
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 14:06
  • 1
    @Mostafa: I'd be careful about adding such a note. I think it will attract attention, which will be negative for either you or your advisor. When people read it, they will think "Wait, if the student and advisor both agree that the student was the main contributor to this paper, then why was the advisor listed as the first author?" If anyone asks your advisor, then either he admits to misconduct regarding author ordering, or he throws you under the bus by saying "Sure, Mostafa contributed a lot, but not quite as much as I did, which is why I was first author."
    – Anonymous Mathematician
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 15:43
  • 1
    It's possible your advisor doesn't think the misconduct is so bad and actually will admit "Yes, Mostafa was the main contributor, but I really needed the first authorship, so I decided to list myself first." That will look bad for him. But I'd guess that if it reaches the point where he has to explain, he'll realize that the explanation isn't looking good, and he'll instead decide to defend the published author ordering.
    – Anonymous Mathematician
    Commented Nov 10, 2014 at 15:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .