Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: cross-sectional study of researchers' roles and author order in theAnnals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

ObjectiveHow researchers’ contributions relate to author order on the byline remains unclear. We sought to identify researchers’ contributions associated with author order, and to explore the existence of author profiles.DesignObservational study.SettingPublished record.Participants1139 authors of 119 research articles published in 2015 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.Primary outcomesPresence or absence of 10 contributions, reported by each author, published in the journal.ResultsOn average, first authors reported 7.1 contributions, second authors 5.2, middle authors 4.0, penultimate authors 4.5 and last authors 6.4 (p<0.001). The first author made the greatest contributions to drafting the article, designing the study, analysing and interpreting the data, and providing study materials or patients. The second author contributed to data analysis as well and to drafting the article. The last author was most involved in obtaining the funding, critically revising the article, designing the study and providing support. Factor analysis yielded three author profiles—Thinker (study design, revision of article, obtaining funding), Soldier (providing material or patients, providing administrative and logistical support, collecting data) and Scribe (analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, statistical expertise). These profiles do not strictly correspond to byline position.ConclusionsFirst, second and last authors of research articles made distinct contributions to published research. Three authorship profiles can be used to summarise author contributions. These findings shed light on the organisation of clinical research teams and may help researchers discuss, plan and report authorship in a more transparent way.

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

“…The extent of each author's contribution can be inferred from the order in which their names appear in the byline (Logan, Bean, & Myers, ), though the conventional meanings of authorship positions vary among research disciplines and countries (Liu & Fang, ; Waltman, ). The most common convention is for the first author to be the person who contributed the most to a project and the last author to be the person who supervised the project (Baerlocher, Newton, Gautam, Tomlinson, & Detsky, ; Corrêa, Silva, Costa, & Amancio, ; Costas & Bordons, ; Larivière et al, ; Marušić, Bošnjak, & Jerončić, ; Perneger et al, ; Sundling, ; Yang, Wolfram, & Wang, ), though there are necessarily many exceptions to this convention, especially when coauthors are of equivalent professional rank rather than in a mentee–mentor relationship. Surveys indicate that ecologists tend to assume that the first author contributed the most time and energy to the project (Weltzin, Belote, Williams, Keller, & Engel, ) and that the last author is the senior researcher (e.g., head of laboratory) under whose guidance the research was done (Duffy, ).…”

Authorship: Musings about guests and ghosts

“…Does authorship order tell us who did the work? In a cross‐sectional study of researchers’ roles and author order in the Annals of Internal Medicine, author order on the byline reflected the differences in the researchers’ roles and involvement in the study and in the published article, both in quantity and in quality . A U‐shaped pattern of the frequency of most author contributions according to byline position was found, supporting the notion that first (and second) and last authors were among the most involved.…”

A look at the increasing demographic representation within behavioral medicine

“…We also can help by starting to tackle the personal biases that filter through all the complex processes involved in the pathways to academic success, including the decision about who is first author. For example, even in a 2017 publication on the contributions made by senior, other, and first authors, the resulting factors from their factor analysis were described as 'thinker', 'soldier', 'scribe' (Perneger et al, 2017). Now ask yourself this: did an Hispanic or African woman first cross your mind when you read 'soldier'?…”