Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications 英文参考文献.docVIP

Correspondence Author Sequence and Credit for Contributions in Multiauthored Publications Table 1. Comparison of the Credit for Contributions to This Paper under the Four Different Models Suggested in the Text Author SDC EC FLAE PCI Contribution (%) for PCI Traditional Credit Teja Tscharntke , Michael E. Hochberg, Tatyana A. * Rand, Vincent H. Resh, Jochen Krauss TT 14.7 7.3 2.9 14.7 2.9 8.8 2.9 60 20 10 5 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 73.5 MEH TAR VHR JK 2.9 2.9 The increasing tendency across scienti?c disciplines to write multiauthored papers [1,2] makes the issue of the sequence of contributors’ names a major topic both in terms of re?ecting actual contributions and in a posteriori assessments by evaluation committees. Traditionally, the ?rst author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, whereas the position of subsequent authors is usually decided by contribution, alphabetical order, or reverse seniority. Ranking the ?rst or second author in a two-author paper is straightforward, but the meaning of position becomes increasingly arbitrary as the number of authors increases beyond two. Criteria for authorship have been discussed at length, because of the in?ationary increase in the number of authors on papers submitted to biomedical journals and the practice of “gift” authorship [3,4], but a simple way to determine credit associated with the sequence of authors’ names is still missing [4–7] (http://www. ). The situation in our area of research—the ecological and environmental sciences—has changed in recent years. Following informal practices in the biomedical sciences, the last author often gets as much credit as the ?rst author, because he or she is assumed to be the driving force, both intellectually and ?nancially, behind the research. Evaluation committees and funding bodies often take last authorship as a sign of successful group leadership and make this a criterion in hiring, granting, and promotion. This practice is unof?cial, and hence not alw