Call Researcher Science Society – Guidance and rules

1.0 What You Need to Discuss
• You need to agree to a philosophy of the entire group. This agreement might involve intelectual property rights, work style, or shared values. Examples of this could be that the research content does not belong to any one person. The group might decide to work together the entire way through the paper or, they may write their parts individually.
• The needs, interests, writing ability and goals of each person in the group. There are many reasons that people may wish to right a paper and knowing this will help you decide who gets what credit later on.
• The roles of everyone that is involved with the paper that could not be present. This typically refers to research assistance, former team members, or other hired staff.
• The overall production goals of each individual and the team. These projects typically have a primary article that is followed by several smaller articles that will be specific to a certain key elements of the main article.Some research teams will outline all of the articles that will be produced. This even includes articles that will not be written by the team as a whole.
All disscussion and agreements should be written down for future reference.

2.0 Roles:
Main Author: The main author will be responsible for the suggestion of the main topic of the work, information of their research, and the main ideas for the project. The main author has the research data and is in need of help from co-authors to write their research paper. The main author’s name will be first in the authorship section. All other names will be listed in alphabetical order after the main author.
Author: The author will suggest the topic, ideas, and the produce the information for their research. The Author does not have research data at the beginning of the paper. All of the authors and co-authors will be listed alphabetically.
How to Determine the Whos and Hows of Authorship
In many research labs, multiple-author papers are a reality of life. The criteria for determine authorship follows unwritten rules. This essay on authorship has been put together from my experiences as a graduate student at UW-Madison and Cornell University and as a postdoctoral person at the National Center for Ecological Synthesis and Analysis. There have been many that have also contributed to this guide.
A clear understanding about how the authorship is going to be done will save you many arguments later on. This is especially true if you have people from many different disciplines. Authorship should be one of the first things that is discussed between researchers so that it can be negotiated before the writing begins. There should be an agreement that lays out which papers will be jointly written and which will be authored individually. Always make sure that all of the drafts have the authorship to prevent future arguments.
3.0 Authorship
3.1 Who should be an Author?
Generally speaking, the authorship is typically reserved for the ones that have made a significant intellectual contribution to the paper. The actual definition of what makes a significant contribution is subject to opinion. Listed below is my criteria that I have used based on my many years of work within large multi-disciplinary groups and labs.
a) Generally, if someone brought a skill, data, or perspective, then you might want to place them as a co-author. If many other people have that same skill, data, or perspective, then they may not be an author or a co-author.
b) If the team member had a role that was significant in three out of five of these areas, they should be listed as a co-author. These criteria are made for empirical projects although, they can provide a general rule for those that are conducting theoretical research.
i) They help you form the main topic. This can be a difficult to judge so make sure that you are generous in considering this.
ii) If they helped you to plan the paper. This can also include people that get the funding or providing the equipment.
iii) If they have helped you do the research. This includes any part of doing the research from data collection to math.
iv) Analyzing the data. This includes database manipulations, providing new insights that derive from the results, statistical or graphical analysis.
v) Writing and publishing the actual results. This can include any of the final parts of the paper from writing to editing for a publisher.
Make sure to be as generous as you can. There are barely any examples of careers that were destroyed because the author added an extra name to the list. There are many examples of relationships that were destroyed because proper credit was not given.
It is important to keep in mind that adding authors who have not contributed enough to a paper will cause the people that are reading the paper to undervalue the other authors who did. This is not an easy decision to make. Here is some criteria to help you decide:
3.2 Implications of Authorship
Here are some ideas on the implication and meaning of the different author structures.
a) Single Author is when you have done all of the work that was essential to the paper. There may have been others that helped by making suggestions, by doing the editing, etc.
b) Two authors is when a paper has been shared between the two. Both of you did as much work to make sure that the paper was completed. The first author is thought to have produced most of the writing.
c) Three or more authors means that there may not necessarily be a shared amount of work. Man believe that the authors are mentioned by the amount of work that they have done. This is not necessarily the case. The first author could have been the leader who oversaw the project. The other authors could have been students of a professor. This is the reason why it can be so confusing when you are attempting to figure out how you should list your authors.
3.3 III. Author order
Authorship order can also both tricky and a reason that collaborators may feel stressed. Here are a few ideas to figure out the order:
a) The first author should be the one who has made the most substantial contribution to the paper and who has taken the lead.
b) The first author should handle all of the decisions about authorship including how the order of authors should go.
c) People who have made a substantial contribution should follow the first author by the amount they have contributed. This will make it clear who contributed the most and give proper credit where it is due.
There are times when there will be no clear differences in the size or the contributions themselves are so different that it makes comparing them impossible. When this happens, consider an alphabetical order by their last names for all of the authors that meet the criteria for authorship. Once the paper has been published, the order really does not matter. No matter what the author order is, each person that is working on the paper should have a chance to approve the final version.
4) The student-mentor relationship and authorship
When you are a student that is early in your graduate career, make sure that you follow the criteria that your instructor might have. A good instructor will normally have an important role in at least three areas. They might help in the formulation of the idea for the paper, help you to collect data, provide the funds, provide you with the equipment, and help you through the final stages. The one area that they will normally avoid having a role in data collection which means that students will normally include their instructor as a co-author. Students in the later parts of their career might publish without their advisor. If your advisor feels that they have not provided enough of a contribution, they may request that you leave their name off of the list.
This also puts an obligations on those that are mentoring to weigh the role that they have had in the papers that have been produced by members of their team. If they have not made a substantial contribution to the paper, they need to remove their name to protect the intellectual integrity of the paper’s authors. They should both understand and acknowledge the contribution of their team mates that are assisting with the creation of the paper.
Revisit the Issue
Even the best plan for success can result in a dispute. Ongoing discussions and agreements are key to maintaining a good environment for the creation of the paper. Written records must be kept to keep people from claiming things that are not true. The time and energy that you will spend will prevent hurt feelings, animosity, and problems. It is possible for these guidelines to creat an enjoyable and proffessionally rewarding experiance between co-authors..

Some Rules:
The great debate on co-authorship always notes the most sensitive and important subjects that are crucial in science. They are the trust between colleagues, the growing importance of people collaborating, the mentor relationship that exists in a research lab, and the role that publication plays in everyone’s career advancement. It is important to make sure that:
• Always take responsibility if you take credit;
• You should always insist on data gathering, but also include yourself in the analysis and interpretation of the data;
• Do not attempt to co-author unless you have a full understanding of the work;
• Always contribute your significant ideas and your view for the experimental design for your project;
• Be a part of both the experimentation and the analysis of the data and
• Make sure that you are able to both present and defend the work that was created at a scientific meeting. Make a note of which authors have made significant unique contributions to the project.