Context : Let us say we had submit a paper in microbiology, received reviews and are discussing changes to be made for better explanation to the reviewers. The authors are a grad student and two professors/PIs, but the answer could be more general than this context..
I want to know if the first author(s) can dominate in the chain of command and can overrule comments from other authors including the last/corresponding author who are likely professors.
I understand that it is ideal for all the authors to come to a consensus on the textual content of the paper. But just in case there is a conflict, is there a etiquette within the field/other fields on how to make the decision? Options I can think of are -
- Use a majority vote, considering that all authors are equal. But this will fail when the assumption that all authors are voting independently is violated ;P
- The first author(s) get to decide, based on inputs from other authors
- The professor overrules the decision, as a natural powerful position outside the hierarchy within the particular paper
I did try looking at a couple sources but this topic was not covered. They focus more on how to decide the author hierarchy -
- How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. COPE report, 2003
- Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. ICMJE, 2003
Any brief experience of such a scenario or guidelines on this matter would be useful. Please do cite your sources :)