2

I'm co-authoring a CS paper with another student. While we both did equal lab work, I wrote about 90% of the paper and did most of the literature review since I’m more fluent in English and generally better at writing. My co-author suggested we list ourselves as equal contributors, but her name would come first alphabetically. To recognize my contributions, she suggested listing my name first instead.

On one hand, I’d like to be first author due to the significant writing contribution, but on the other hand, I want to ensure her work is recognized, as she put in a lot of effort as well.

Would listing ourselves as equal contributors but with my name first be a fair compromise, or should I insist on sole first authorship? How much does this distinction matter for my academic career? I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    What kind meaning do you imagine is attached to being the first of two authors who are explicitly listed as equal contributors?
    – Adam Přenosil
    Commented Oct 16 at 22:50
  • That's what I'm trying to find out. This is my first submission and I've heard even for equal contributions, the first author still gains marginally higher recognition.
    – Dojou
    Commented Oct 16 at 23:11
  • 1
    Why is "marginally" important to you? Why is collegiality less important?
    – Buffy
    Commented Oct 16 at 23:35
  • 1
    Collegiality is precisely why I’m considering this. Otherwise, I would have just rejected her proposal. Both she and my advisor agree that I should be listed first. She asked this as a favor, and I do want her efforts to be recognized. To be clear, I'm not fighting for marginally more recognition, I'm asking if I should settle for it. However, I don’t think it’s ethical to use collegiality to pressure someone into giving up the recognition they deserve. @Buffy
    – Dojou
    Commented Oct 17 at 3:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Alphabetical is pretty common in CS. A group I was in deviated from that only once. Actually, as in math, insight is more important than quantity of effort.

I'd suggest alphabetical, unless one person drove all the work and provided all of the insights. In my exceptional case, two people did the essential work and the rest of us contributed background and context. One of the "not first" authors actually did all of the writing as he was recognized as the best writer, but that didn't make him "first" author.

You can also have a brief paragraph of acknowledgements early in the paper that details the contributions (not the quantity of effort) of each author.

And, there can be a difference between theoretical work (alphabetical preferred) and applied work (other ordering), even in CS.

People might even be confused if the ordering isn't alphabetical.

Improve this answer
3
  • Our work is applied, and in our field, authorship is typically ordered by contribution. Most insights were provided by me and our supervisor. My advisor and I usually agreed on a course of action that my co-author would then follow through. However, she handled half of the extensive experimentation. Given this, should I insist on first authorship?
    – Dojou
    Commented Oct 16 at 23:18
  • Actually, neither the lit review nor the act of writing are the most important contributions. I suggest you think long term. Nothing here will make or break your career. "Insist" worries me, though.
    – Buffy
    Commented Oct 16 at 23:37
  • I contributed more intellectually, did equal lab work, AND handled the writing and literature review. Maybe I'm using the word "insist" wrong. I just want to understand if my extra effort justifies being the first author.
    – Dojou
    Commented Oct 17 at 3:18

You must log in to answer this question.

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