sole author research paper

First Author vs. Corresponding Author? How to Decide Which to Choose

This article discusses the importance of authorship in academic publishing. The first author executes a large portion of the work throughout the research process and signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript, is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities, and serves as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process.

Updated on April 26, 2023

Every process is conducted through a series of steps. The Scientific Method, for example, provides guidelines for navigating the research process and generally includes:

• Making observations
• Identifying a problem
• Formulating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Analyzing the data
• Reporting a conclusion

While the actual procedures may vary between fields, the underlying process remains intact. The same holds true for the publication process:

• Complete your research
• Choose a journal
• Prepare the manuscript
• Submit the manuscript
• Make any revisions
• Publication

Each of these processes contains many more specific steps and processes, including assigning authorship to the research manuscript . This article outlines the importance of authorship, delineates the meanings of first author and corresponding author, and addresses some of the challenges associated with the process.

Why is authorship important?

On the surface, the positioning of a researcher’s name and title on a manuscript seems straightforward, a simple task. Most lay people use the list of names solely for searching and citation purposes.

In reality, though, the order of those names tells a complex story of authorship. It is, in fact, the primary way for a researcher to convey the extent of their contribution to the reader.

To attain authorship on a manuscript, a researcher must not only contribute substantially to the work but also take responsibility and accountability for the information it contains. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends authorship be based on 4 specific criteria related to these broad principles.

With authorship comes both recognition and obligation that have important academic, social, and financial implications. The two most prominent authorship positions are first author and corresponding author .

What is the first author?

The first author position is a coveted spot. No matter how many other authors’ names appear on the manuscript or which referencing style is used, the first author’s last name will be mentioned in every future citation of the work.

For this reason alone, the name of the first author is remembered, indexed, and promoted more than any other. It is not just a status symbol, though. The first author executes a large portion or majority of the work throughout the research process.

First author credit signifies the researcher has provided the greatest intellectual contribution, and, therefore, comes with substantial benefits. The manuscripts of first authors hold substantial value for grant and position applications, staff appraisals and reviews, and many other forms of career development.

First author duties

The designation as first author is not based on academic or professional hierarchy, the prestige, or expertise of the author. It’s based on the inputs and outputs of work. First authors must:

• Make significant, original, and insightful intellectual contributions
• Participate in the conception and planning of the study
• Generate data through performing experiments, conducting literature reviews, and organizing surveys and interviews
• Analyze the results through statistical analysis and by generating graphs, tables, and illustrations
• Write and edit the manuscript
• Help with queries and revisions after submission

The researcher fulfilling all these duties is rightfully the first author.

What is the corresponding author?

Like the first author designation, the title of corresponding author also comes with considerable prestige. The corresponding author is explicitly identified on the first page of the manuscript. In addition to meeting all the preexisting authorship requirements, this person is selected to further manage the pre and post-publication responsibilities.

The corresponding author is customarily a senior researcher or academic with extensive publishing knowledge and experience. As the primary source of communication for both the publisher and the readers, the corresponding author’s contact information is included within the article.

The corresponding author must have exceptional communication skills. The role assumes primary responsibility for connecting with target journals. They must be organized and meticulous with the substantial volume of tasks associated with the position.

Corresponding author duties

Neither electing a corresponding author nor accepting the position should be taken lightly as it is an essential and long lasting obligation. The duties span from prior to publication to well afterwards and include:

While all corresponding authors serve as the point of contact for communication with a journal during the submission, peer review, and publication process, some journals outline additional conditions for the role. The National Academy of Sciences offers a table that compiles the corresponding author requirements for various journals.

What if there are authorship disputes or changes?

While openly discussing and defining a research team’s roles during the initial planning phase is vital for curbing authorship disputes, combining this practice with other forward-thinking acts is key. Responsibilities and work status must be addressed during regularly scheduled meetings and special meetings need to be called when a team member is added or ends involvement in the project.

How to avoid authorship disputes

To avoid disputes, teams start by mapping out the most obvious roles, author and non-author contributor, and by rejecting any proposed “non-role.” The input of non-author contributors is narrow in scope, providing technical, administrative or writing assistance, and does not fulfill the previously outlined authorship criteria.

A non-role is any inappropriate or irrelevant participant who will harm the research process, such as unethical types of authors . This category encompasses guest authors, forged authors, ghost authors, and orphan authors and must be avoided at all costs.

Many journals require a document be included with the submission package to delineate author contributions to explain and justify author order. By creating this list as a living document from the outset, a research team fulfills the prerequisite for the publisher and guarantees transparency and fairness throughout.

Because changing authorship after publication is messy, necessitating specific documentation, signatures, and approval, it is frowned upon by journal editors. While taking proactive steps to avoid disputes that may result in this situation saves the research team time and hassle, it does not always alleviate future changes.

The addition, removal, or reordering of authors on a manuscript while actively going through the publication process requires a letter signed by all original and additional authors stating the reason for the change and their mutual agreement. For changes made after publication, an authorship corrigendum must be submitted by all authors per COPE guidelines .

Final thoughts

Getting to the manuscript writing and publication stages of a research project are exciting milestones for everyone involved. Ideally, authorship roles are clearly defined and assigned at this point.

Though the first author and corresponding author positions are sometimes performed by the same person, the obligations of each are unique. The first author undertakes the bulk of work duties and makes a significant intellectual contribution to the research project. The corresponding author carries out the communication and administrative tasks necessary for publishing the manuscript.

Both roles are vital to the research and publication processes. They require intense labor and responsibility. With this comes great recognition and prestige for first authors and corresponding authors.

Charla Viera, MS

See our "Privacy Policy"

Website Navigation for Screen Readers

• Return home
• Go to header navigation
• Go to search form
• Go to content region
• Go to footer region

Who is a “corresponding or sole author?”

“Corresponding author” refers to the author responsible for communication with the publisher; “sole author” applies to articles that only have one author.  If an article has only one author who is a full time JH faculty member or the corresponding author of an article is a full-time JH faculty member, then the article needs to be made openly available by that faculty member through one of the methods described in the policy.

• Office of the Provost

265 Garland Hall 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Phone: (410) 516-8070 Fax: (410) 516-8035 [email protected]

• External link to Facebook
• External link to Instagram
• External link to Twitter
• External link to Linkedin
• External link to Youtube
• External link to Wikipedia
• About the Provost’s Office
• University Policies
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University
• University Contacts
• Emergency Contact Information
• Student Right to Know

Website Footer Navigation

• Jump to content region

Copy URL to Clipboard

Is it better to have single-author papers.

• Clear ownership and accountability: A single-author paper clearly identifies the person responsible for the entire project, from conceptualization to execution to publication. This can make it easier to assess the impact of the research and evaluate the researcher's contributions.
• Independence: Single-author papers can reflect the individual's research vision, goals, and ideas without external interference or input.
• Efficiency: Single-author papers can be completed more quickly and with fewer communication difficulties, as there is only one person involved in the decision-making process.
• Diverse expertise and skills: Collaborative research can bring together researchers with different skills and expertise to tackle complex research questions.
• More resources: Collaborative research can provide access to more funding, data, and equipment than a single researcher might have access to.
• More perspectives: Collaborative research can incorporate different perspectives and approaches, leading to a more comprehensive and insightful study.

Ali Tafazoli

Machado, s., ian m. davis, rajat sandhir, andres trostchansky, zaheer afzal, dr j francis borgio, bhoj r singh, carlos marcelo scavuzzo, dr amarachi nkwoada, chandrika murugaiah, reham eltarabili, akhilesh kumar, dr harsh shah, niaz muhammad, giovanni s,, dr. saeed akhtar, yasir javed, muammar qadafi, naveed ahmad, mohamed hassaan, dr ritika sharma, anton dolzhenko, dr endale mulugeta, dr. arehalli manjappa, ahmed alengebawy, azevedo,luís peres, saira siddique, md. habibullah-al-mamun, tontonbrico, dr. sharada mallubhotla, rafia azmat, adam zwickle, dr parvaiz koul, nihed ben halima.

• The vast majority of published research papers don't advance research or only very marginally, whether from single or multiple authors.
• The only recognized way to evaluate the quality of a research paper, i.e. to evaluate its potential for advancing research in general, is the peer-review process. Since the peer-review process does not care at all about the number of authors, one can only assume that the number of authors is not an indicator of quality in any way.
• research topic: some topics require a diversity of skills or an amount of work which cannot be carried out by a single person. On the other hand some topics require a deep thought process which is more likely to happen in a single brain.
• personal preferences and finding the right collaborators: in research like in many other things, things often happen in this way or that way just because of circumstances.

Rolf Teschke

Nouhoum bouare, anju manuja, dr jelena ćirić, post an answer, answer count.

Defining authorship in your research paper

Co-authors, corresponding authors, and affiliations, why does authorship matter.

Authorship gives credit and implies accountability for published work, so there are academic, social and financial implications.

It is very important to make sure people who have contributed to a paper, are given credit as authors. And also that people who are recognized as authors, understand their responsibility and accountability for what is being published.

There are a couple of types of authorship to be aware of.

Co-author Any person who has made a significant contribution to a journal article. They also share responsibility and accountability for the results of the published research.

Corresponding author If more than one author writes an article, you’ll choose one person to be the corresponding author. This person will handle all correspondence about the article and sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors. They are responsible for ensuring that all the authors’ contact details are correct, and agree on the order that their names will appear in the article. The authors also will need to make sure that affiliations are correct, as explained in more detail below.

Open access publishing

There is increasing pressure on researchers to show the societal impact of their research.

Open access can help your work reach new readers, beyond those with easy access to a research library.

How common is co-authorship and what are the challenges collaborating authors face? Our white paper  Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A global view explores the experiences of 894 researchers from 62 countries.

If you are a named co-author, this means that you:

Made a significant contribution to the work reported. That could be in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.

Have drafted or written, substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.

Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.

Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.

Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article. Share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Every submission to our medical and health science journals should comply with the International Committee on Medical Journal Ethics’  definition of authorship .

Please include any other form of specific personal contribution in the acknowledgments section of your paper.

Affiliations: get it right

Your affiliation in the manuscript should be the institution where you conducted the research. You should also include details of any funding received from that institution.

If you have changed affiliation since completing the research, your new affiliation can be acknowledged in a note. We can’t normally make changes to affiliation after the journal accepts your article.

Changes to authorship

Authorship changes post-submission should only be made in exceptional circumstances, and any requests for authors to be removed or added must be in line with our authorship criteria.  

If you need to make an authorship change, you will need to contact the Journal Editorial Office or Editorial team in the first instance. You will be asked to complete our Authorship Change request form ; all authors (including those you are adding or removing) must sign this form. This will be reviewed by the Editor (and in some instances, the publisher). 

Please note any authorship change is at the Editor’s discretion; they have the right to refuse any authorship change they do not believe conforms with our authorship policies. 

Some T&F journals do not allow any authorship changes post-submission; where this is applicable, this will be clearly indicated on the journal homepage or on the ‘instructions for authors’ page. 

If the corresponding author changes before the article is published (for example, if a co-author becomes the corresponding author), you will need to write to the editor of the journal and the production editor. You will need to confirm to them that both authors have agreed the change.

Requested changes to the co-authors or corresponding authors following publication of the article may be considered, in line with the  authorship guidelines issued by COPE , the Committee on Publication Ethics. Please  see our corrections policy  for more details. Any requests for changes must be made by submitting the completed  Authorship Change Request form .

Authorship Change Request form

Important: agree on your corresponding author and the order of co-authors, and check all affiliations and contact details before submitting.

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies on Authorship

The following instructions (part of our  Editorial Policies ) apply to all Taylor & Francis Group journals.

Corresponding author

Co-authors must agree on who will take on the role of corresponding author. It is then the responsibility of the corresponding author to reach consensus with all co-authors regarding all aspects of the article, prior to submission. This includes the authorship list and order, and list of correct affiliations.

The corresponding author is also responsible for liaising with co-authors regarding any editorial queries. And, they act on behalf of all co-authors in any communication about the article throughout: submission, peer review, production, and after publication. The corresponding author signs the publishing agreement on behalf of all the listed authors.

AI-based tools and technologies for content generation

Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria.

All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions. Therefore, LLMs and other similar types of tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Where AI tools are used in content generation, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately in the authored work.

Changes in authorship

Any changes in authorship prior to or after publication must be agreed upon by all authors – including those authors being added or removed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to obtain confirmation from all co-authors and to provide a completed Authorship Change Request form to the editorial office.

If a change in authorship is necessary after publication, this will be amended via a post-publication notice. Any changes in authorship must comply with our criteria for authorship. And requests for significant changes to the authorship list, after the article has been accepted, may be rejected if clear reasons and evidence of author contributions cannot be provided.

Assistance from scientific, medical, technical writers or translators

Contributions made by professional scientific, medical or technical writers, translators or anyone who has assisted with the manuscript content, must be acknowledged. Their source of funding must also be declared.

They should be included in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section with an explanation of their role, or they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are advised to consult the  joint position statement  from American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP).

Assistance with experiments and data analysis

Any significant contribution to the research reported, should be appropriately credited according to our authorship criteria.

If any parts of the research were outsourced to professional laboratories or to data analysts, this should be clearly stated within the manuscript, alongside an explanation of their role. Or, they should be included in the author list if appropriate.

Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Acknowledgments

Any individuals who have contributed to the article (for example, technical assistance, formatting-related writing assistance, translators, scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to developing the article), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be listed by name and affiliation in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section.

It is the responsibility of the authors to notify and obtain permission from those they wish to identify in this section. The process of obtaining permission should include sharing the article, so that those being identified can verify the context in which their contribution is being acknowledged.

Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. large language models) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.

Biographical note

Please supply a short biographical note for each author. This could be adapted from your departmental website or academic networking profile and should be relatively brief (e.g. no more than 200 words).Authors are responsible for retaining all of the original data related to their work, and should be prepared to share it with the journal editorial office if requested.

Author name changes on published articles

There are many reasons why an author may change their name in the course of their career. And they may wish to update their published articles to reflect this change, without publicly announcing this through a correction notice. Taylor & Francis will update journal articles where an author makes a request for their own name change, full or partial, without the requirement for an accompanying correction notice. Any pronouns in accompanying author bios and declaration statements will also be updated as part of the name change, if required.

When an author requests a name change, Taylor & Francis will:

Change the metadata associated with the article on our Taylor & Francis Online platform.

Update the HTML and PDF version of the article.

Resupply the new metadata and article content to any abstracting and indexing services that have agreements with the journal. Note: such services may have their own bibliographic policies regarding author name changes. Taylor \u0026amp; Francis cannot be held responsible for controlling updates to articles on third party sites and services once an article has been disseminated.

If an author wishes for a correction notice to be published alongside their name change, Taylor & Francis will accommodate this on request. But, it is not required for an author name change to be made.

To request a name change, please contact your Journal’s Production Editor or contact us.

Taylor & Francis consider it a breach of publication ethics to request a name change for an individual without their explicit consent.

Additional resources

Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences  – our white paper based on a global survey of researchers’ experiences of collaboration.

Discussion Document: Authorship  – produced by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), this updated guide includes practical advice on addressing the most common ethical issues in this area

Taylor & Francis Editorial Policies

Ethics for authors  – guidelines, support, and your checklist.

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

What is a Corresponding Author?

• 3 minute read
• 426.4K views

Table of Contents

Are you familiar with the terms “corresponding author” and “first author,” but you don’t know what they really mean? This is a common doubt, especially at the beginning of a researcher’s career, but easy to explain: fundamentally, a corresponding author takes the lead in the manuscript submission for publication process, whereas the first author is actually the one who did the research and wrote the manuscript.

The order of the authors can be arranged in whatever order suits the research group best, but submissions must be made by the corresponding author. It can also be the case that you don’t belong in a research group, and you want to publish your own paper independently, so you will probably be the corresponding author and first author at the same time.

Corresponding author meaning:

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Normally, he or she also ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors.

Generally, corresponding authors are senior researchers or group leaders with some – or a lot of experience – in the submission and publishing process of scientific research. They are someone who has not only contributed to the paper significantly but also has the ability to ensure that it goes through the publication process smoothly and successfully.

What is a corresponding author supposed to do?

A corresponding author is responsible for several critical aspects at each stage of a study’s dissemination – before and after publication.

If you are a corresponding author for the first time, take a look at these 6 simple tips that will help you succeed in this important task:

• Ensure that major deadlines are met
• Prepare a submission-ready manuscript
• Put together a submission package
• Get all author details correct
• Ensure ethical practices are followed
• Take the lead on open access

In short, the corresponding author is the one responsible for bringing research (and researchers) to the eyes of the public. To be successful, and because the researchers’ reputation is also at stake, corresponding authors always need to remember that a fine quality text is the first step to impress a team of peers or even a more refined audience. Elsevier’s team of language and translation professionals is always ready to perform text editing services that will provide the best possible material to go forward with a submission or/and a publication process confidently.

Who is the first author of a scientific paper?

The first author is usually the person who made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work. That includes designing the study, acquiring and analyzing data from experiments and writing the actual manuscript. As a first author, you will have to impress a vast group of players in the submission and publication processes. But, first of all, if you are in a research group, you will have to catch the corresponding author’s eye. The best way to give your work the attention it deserves, and the confidence you expect from your corresponding author, is to deliver a flawless manuscript, both in terms of scientific accuracy and grammar.

If you are not sure about the written quality of your manuscript, and you feel your career might depend on it, take full advantage of Elsevier’s professional text editing services. They can make a real difference in your work’s acceptance at each stage, before it comes out to the public.

Language Editing Services by Elsevier Author Services:

Through our Language Editing Services , we correct proofreading errors, and check for grammar and syntax to make sure your paper sounds natural and professional. We also make sure that editors and reviewers can understand the science behind your manuscript.

With more than a hundred years of experience in publishing, Elsevier is trusted by millions of authors around the world.

Check our video Elsevier Author Services – Language Editing to learn more about Author Services.

Find more about What is a corresponding author on Pinterest:

What is Journal Impact Factor?

What is a Good H-index?

You may also like.

How to Make a PowerPoint Presentation of Your Research Paper

How to Submit a Paper for Publication in a Journal

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Writing and research

Sole author, co-author, or edited collection?

When you have an idea for a book, before you put pen to paper or finger to keyboard you have some decisions to make. One of those is: should the book be sole-authored, co-authored, or an edited collection? Having now been involved in producing several of both kinds, I have come up with some pointers which I hope may help less experienced writers.

Each of these formats has pros and cons. Writing alone requires no negotiation with co-authors, co-editors, or contributors, which saves time and effort. However, you need to be sure that you know enough about your topic to fill 80,000 words, and that you can find out what you need to know to fill any gaps. Also, you need to be sure that you can convey what you know to readers in an engaging way. If the peer review process works as it should, the reviewers will help you with this, but that is not something you can entirely rely on, because despite publishers’ best efforts it can be difficult to find reviewers for books, or to persuade them to write sufficiently detailed reviews. As sole author, all of the responsibility rests on you, so it is essential to be really sure that you’re up to the job.

Co-authoring can be a delight, if you have a co-author who is on your wavelength, and whose working style is similar or complementary to yours. I had this experience with Richard Phillips when we co-wrote Creative Writing for Social Research ; we had a lot of fun, as well as some serious debates, and created a book we are both proud to have written. It is sensible to check out whether this will be the case before you take on any co-writing work. Co-authoring that goes wrong is time-consuming and stressful, and this can almost always be pre-empted. Being invited to co-author with someone else can be very flattering, but even so, find out about your co-author’s views and working style before you say ‘yes’. And if you develop misgivings, act on them, particularly at pre-contract stage when you can still pull out. Once you have signed a contract, withdrawing becomes more difficult.

When co-authoring with one other person goes well, it can be a delightful, intimate, enriching experience. There is also an argument for co-authoring in teams. I co-authored Creative Research Methods in Education with three colleagues, Narelle Lemon , Dawn Mannay , and Megan McPherson . Each of us brought different knowledges and experiences to the task, and I think the book is a much better book than it would have been if any two of us had co-authored alone. Also, more authors means less work, overall, for each person. We each led on 2-3 chapters, which meant drafting the chapter and then implementing feedback from our co-authors as we revised. This was a serious chunk of work for each of us, but significantly less work than sole-authoring a book or even co-writing with one other author. But, again, before you take on team writing, you need to have a conversation about working styles and expectations, and ensure you have a sufficiently similar approach. Also, with a team-written book, one member of the team needs to take responsibility for the final polishing stage, to ensure the ‘voice’ of the book is as consistent as possible.

Editing or co-editing a collection is useful when you are dealing with a topic where you want to hear from different voices, and/or different locations, or where nobody knows enough to write a whole book. I have just finished co-editing Qualitative and Digital Research in Times of Crisis: Methods, Reflexivity and Ethics with Su-ming Khoo . Neither of us knew enough about this to write a book, and we wanted to hear from researchers working in different fields and disciplines around the world. So creating an edited collection was the obvious way to go. I wrote a how-to post on editing collections last week so I won’t repeat that here. In brief: it is overall less work than co-writing, but there is still an amount of work to be done, including project management, writing or commissioning a useful introduction and conclusion, and quality control. Even though the bulk of the book will be written by other people, and the publishers will do some copy editing and proof-reading, it is your name which will be on the cover so the buck stops with you.

Disciplinary influences may come into play, as in some disciplines sole authorship is more common, while other fields are more inclined towards co-writing or edited collections. However, if you have a choice, think about what is best for you and for the book. If you are a complete control freak, you may only want to sole-author. If you are a devotee of team-working, you may only want to co-author or co-edit. But you also need to think about what is best for the book. If you have an idea for a book that really needs to be an edited collection, but you can’t stand the thought of creating one of those, you could always pass on the idea to someone else who might want to take it on.

This blog, and the monthly #CRMethodsChat on Twitter, and my YouTube channel , are funded by my beloved Patrons . It takes me more than one working day per month to post here each week, run the Twitterchat and produce content for YouTube. At the time of writing I’m receiving funding from Patrons of $86 per month. If you think a day of my time is worth more than $86 – you can help ! Ongoing support would be fantastic but you can also make a one-time donation through the PayPal button on this blog if that works better for you. Support from Patrons and donors also enables me to keep this blog ad-free. If you are not able to support me financially, please consider reviewing any of my books you have read – even a single-line review on Amazon or Goodreads is a huge help – or sharing a link to my work on social media. Thank you!

Share this:

2 thoughts on “ sole author, co-author, or edited collection ”.

Thanks. I shared it with my FB page. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the research worls. 

| |  Dr. Godwin Kodituwakku  Chairman  Institute for Research & Development in Health & Social Care  www.ird.lk   |   +94 11 2863084   |   [email protected] | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Click or Scan to learn more about Our Research Community |

Like Liked by 1 person

Thank you for your comment, and for sharing my work; I really appreciate your support.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

How to Decide the First Author and Corresponding Author in a Manuscript

When a scholarly/academic paper is produced, the researchers participating in the work must assign a first author and corresponding author. This is a challenging decision and sometimes there’s conflict because the positions can also indicate status (whether real or perceived).

The first author and corresponding author, ideally, are decided during the research and through a mutual agreement among the authors. It’s made based on an understanding of the role and significance of the positions. The author order generally indicates the amount of contribution.

The first author is considered to have contributed more than the second author, and so forth, until reaching the author in the last position. A shared first author (co-first author) or shared corresponding author (co-corresponding author), however, isn’t out of the question.

The last position may also be prestigious – considered the senior author or principal investigator. One of the authors in the list will also be the corresponding author. This means they coordinate the publication process (such as arranging editing and communicating with the journal and with other inquiries) and have their contact information shown upfront in the work.

• What you’ll learn in this post
• The differences between first author and corresponding author (and what’s a senior author?).
• How first author and corresponding author are defined.
• How to fairly determine which author(s) will fulfill which role(s).
• When and why the same person might fulfill both roles.

Determining the author order

What defines the first author, some of the main duties of a first author are:, what defines a corresponding author, some of the corresponding author’s main duties are:, and who is the senior author, a few words on guarantors, can the first and the corresponding authors be the same person, how do you decide who does what role what are the potential ethical issues.

The order of authors should reasonably correspond to how the authors contributed to the work. It also implies specific credit and responsibilities that go with being in these positions. Working it out over a cup of tea or coffee as soon as possible can help to avoid disputes, and even mediation , later on.

The issue of determining a senior author is also a bit challenging. You need to understand these roles and responsibilities. Don’t just think about who gets the most credit.

Publishing in a scientific journal or any peer-reviewed publication, including preprints and poster presentations , makes research visible to the greater public. It brings discoveries and insights into the eyes of the main experts around the world. This, in turn, builds the author’s reputation as a researcher.

Having a good list of published papers can also help achieve some career goals, such as getting a degree, a promotion or, as a scientist, getting funding to continue with research. The number of first-author papers may also be looked upon as a positive metric.

An “author” (having authorship) of a paper must meet certain criteria for their contributions. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) guidelines state authorship must at least include:

• made substantial contributions to work
• approved the final version
• assumed responsibility and accountability for what is published

However, while the minimum requirements for authorship are generally agreed upon, the credit/responsibility given to a specific author list isn’t so clear. The position on the list can determine the author’s expected duties and show the readers how the author contributed to the work.

So let’s take a deeper look at the definitions of these positions. Hopefully, this will help in your decision-making process. It may in fact affect your future career and status.

Effective English Writing

Get insights from a real journal editor!

This quick handy PDF highlights what to do (and what NOT to do) when writing your research manuscript.

Our experts show you how to write effectively for better readability and faster publication!

Free PDF e-book

The first author is usually the person who makes the greatest practical/intellectual contributions to the work.

This person might have co-authors’ assistance with specific tasks, but they are the main responsible one for acquiring and analyzing the data, and for writing the final manuscript.

The first position in the authorship list of a paper is the most attractive one. First authors will have their (last) name mentioned in every future citation of the work, no matter how many other authors there are.

There can also be co-first authors. This is common in projects that require different areas of expertise. It’s also used where it’s hard to figure out who made a larger contribution. Two or even three authors can be listed as equal contributors.

The co-first authors are denoted by an asterisk or other symbol (for example, “ Author A*, Author B*, Author C, Author D.. ”) and a note on the first page.

But even then, the person listed first will continue to be the most visible. This is because of how citations are created. To give equal credit to both first authors, an alternative is to cite the paper as “ Author A & Author B et al .”., instead of “ Author A et al. ”

• Make intellectual contributions to the work. Participate in the conception and planning of the study; define aims and trace a methodological approach to achieve them.
• Generate the data. For instance, perform experiments, conduct literature reviews, write programming code, etc.
• Analyze the results. Generate graphs , tables , and illustrations to convey the data, and perform statistical analyses when needed.
• Write and edit the manuscript.
• Help the corresponding author with referees’ queries when the paper is under revision.

The corresponding author is responsible for bringing together the manuscript, and for the whole process of submitting it to a journal, up to (hopefully!) final acceptance. Of course, the corresponding author also must meet the academic authorship requirements.

The ICJME defines a corresponding author as someone who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.

In that sense, the corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that all the journal’s administrative requirements are fulfilled. This can include providing documents related to ethics committee approval, data and signatures from all authors, and conflict of interest (COI) statements.

In line with this, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) says the corresponding author should be someone willing to fulfill all obligations the journal stipulates ( COPE Discussion Document , 2014).

The corresponding author’s contact details are included in the article. This makes them the representative for inquiries about the work. A good corresponding author must therefore be readily available. All communications with journals or readers should be done in a timely way.

English ability is also a big help if you’re the corresponding author and you want to publish in English. You’re usually the person whom I , as the editor, will be communicating with when you choose an editing service.

• Certify the manuscript contains all the necessary parts, it is appropriately organized, and it complies with the journal’s requirements. Upload the manuscript and other files.
• Make sure all authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission. Get signed consent.
• Be in charge of all communications related to the paper. Distribute notifications to all authors (e.g., emails, peer review feedback , decision letters).
• Meet all deadlines,­ communicate with the authors and editors efficiently, and follow time schedules for publication.
• Ensure all editorial and submission policies are followed.

Note: Although there’s common sense on the main roles of a corresponding author, some of the responsibilities involved can change from one journal to another (e.g., see this list , created by the National Academy of Sciences, with different journals and their respective requirements).

The senior author is the person who provides the intellectual input and helps to design the study and the protocols to be followed. This is especially because they’re experts in that field of research.

They are also sometimes the financial driving force behind the study and generally supervise several projects. For these reasons, they are also known as the “ principal investigator .” They usually have broad experience in publishing processes, and their names appear in the last positions of the author list.

Honestly, the senior author is often the lab leader or simply the person in charge. For the work they’ve put into this to date, they earned this honor.

Some journals now ask for one author on a paper to be listed as a guarantor. The guarantor:

• accepts official responsibility for the overall integrity of the manuscript (including ethics, data handling, reporting of results, and study conduct)
• does not act as the primary correspondent for the manuscript
• ensures all statements in the manuscript are true to his knowledge

The guarantor can be the same as the corresponding author, or can be another of the authors.

It’s often recommended that the Principal Investigator or Senior Researcher on a manuscript act as the guarantor as they will be responsible for the study supervision already; however, this is not explicitly required.

Yes, first authors can also be corresponding authors in a manuscript. In fact, it’s quite common.

The main conflict here is when authors equate being a corresponding author with seniority. Senior authors are often viewed as the perfect corresponding authors because of all the qualities they have, as mentioned.

However, as discussed, a corresponding author is charged with communicating with editors and readers only. Journal editors usually see this as an administrative role. Therefore, the corresponding author doesn’t necessarily have to be the seniormost author.

While there’s a special responsibility involved in this role, it’s not supposed to be a mark of distinction. Also, most senior authors will probably have less available time to reply to queries during the submission review process. And they may not have time to respond to reader queries in the future.

So, first authors should be expected to serve as corresponding authors. This is the case as long as they’re consistently involved in the study and know-how to go through the submission/publication process.

This includes deciding on the need for scientific editing if the English needs improving. The role can also help them gain experience in corresponding with journals and general readers.

Even when the first and corresponding authors aren’t the same person some of their duties can be shared.

While a corresponding author can help the first author, or main author, with data analysis, for example, the first author can help the corresponding author prepare the documents for submission.

The same applies to other authors. Deciding who does what role should be clearly discussed and defined beforehand. Ideally, researchers involved in the study should have regular meetings to clarify responsibilities and update the status of the work. New co-authors may be included and other members may end their involvement along the way. Doing this planning may help prevent conflicts regarding academic authorship and help manage any disputes (Albert & Wager, 2009).

There are many possible reasons for conflict (you can find many examples of real cases on COPE’s website ). Disputes around first authorship are more common because this is the most prestigious position and an important measure of productivity. This happens, for example, when two authors both claim they contributed the most. This issue can be solved by proposing co-first authorship, or by using a system to quantify their contributions and then decide who should go first.

There can also be disagreements when the senior author wants to be the first author, or main author. For example, they may need more or higher-impact publications as the first author. Or they wrote the manuscript and believe this entitles them to be the first author.

Disputes on who will be the corresponding author are less likely. That’s because the role, as mentioned, doesn’t have any special distinction other than a visible name and contact. However, some senior authors may still want this role and occasionally there’s some conflict.

Ideally, the corresponding author should be decided among the others. It’s also possible to share the position, have shared corresponding authors; e.g. both the first and senior authors are co-corresponding authors. This may actually work out well if one is available and the other isn’t.

Every participant should feel free to seek clarity throughout the collaboration. Consider having a written document ( see this example PDF file on APA) in place as guidance ( COPE Discussion Document , 2014; Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement , n.d.).

Before publication, authors should reunite to check the previous responsibilities list and create a final version of the documents. This includes detailed information on the type and extent of the contribution of each person involved. For categories of contributions, see the Contributor Roles Taxonomy [CRediT] website (McNutt et al., 2018). To quantify contributions, different proposed systems can be found in the literature (APA, for example, proposed a scorecard – see their Helpful Tools files).

As several journals now request and publish information about each author’s contributions, such documents can be essential. This can help in creating standards that will improve transparency in the system of scientific publishing. That, in turn, greatly reduces ethical concerns and authorship disputes.

Our Publication Support team is ready to hear from you if you want to accelerate your path to publication. And explore valuable research services that can help increase your impact and avoid ethical mishaps.

This is a guest post from Adam Goulston, PsyD, MBA, MS, MISD, ELS. Adam runs the Asia-based science marketing and PR company Scize . He has worked as an in-house Senior Language Editor, as well as a manuscript editor, with Edanz.

Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2009). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1

COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. (2014). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3

Guidelines on Authorship and Acknowledgement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://research.fas.harvard.edu/links/guidelines-authorship-and-acknowledgement

McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557-2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115

• Researcher Services
• English Editing
• EXCITED by the SCIENCE
• Smart Tools
• Journal Selector
• About Edanz
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Services & Pricing
• 特定商取引法に基づく表記

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Single author scientific paper, 'we' or 'I'?

I am authoring a single author paper. Usually when referring to oneself in a paper, 'we' is used. In single author papers I found both 'we' and 'I' (e.g., 'here we/I report xyz').

Which one is stylistically better? To me 'we' seems odd when I read a single author paper.

• scientific-publishing

• 5 Already answered here: academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2945/… –  Dan Romik Commented Nov 23, 2016 at 16:58
• I think your question has more to do with the fact that it's a scientific paper than the appropriateness of writing style. –  user6035379 Commented Nov 23, 2016 at 19:17
• @DanRomik thank you for that link, this basically answered my question. –  Dahlai Commented Nov 24, 2016 at 10:28
• What did you use finally? We or I? I think I am encountering the same problem here. –  Lin Cheng Commented Aug 3, 2020 at 21:27
• I followed @DanRomik's and Monical Cellio's suggestions –  Dahlai Commented Aug 5, 2020 at 7:55

5 Answers 5

The convention in scientific writing, at least in the hard sciences, is to avoid "I" even for single-author papers. I suspect (but can't prove) that this is why you see so much passive voice in such papers ("the doohickey was then frobitzed to induce a somethingorother reaction").

According to this well-received answer on Academia , you can view use of "we" as an editorial "we" or "we, as in the author and the readers". The latter approach works better for descriptive writing ("we see the following results...") than reporting ("we did X").

Ultimately you should base your decision on the submission requirements of the institution where you intend to publish the paper. But in general, "I" is uncommon, "we" is used even for single-author papers, and you can use "we" in a way that doesn't have to seem weird.

If it's a single author, use I. I is for singular, and if you are doing the research and all that stuff by yourself, then take credit, unless someone's helped you. If you use "we", then there must be more people other than you doing the research, or someone has been helping you.

Check here for more information.

If you are the only one behind the research and the writing behind the paper, I is a singular term and should therefore should be used instead of we. There is no "we" behind the paper if there was only one person masterminding the project. Although, If this was a formal Scientific paper, It Usually is incorrect to refer to ones self during the script; the point is to present your point, not the fact that you found it(although if you found something completely unique and incredibly interesting, by all means, announce the fact of your hand behind the discovery-outside of the paper.)

I would like to add to this debate (and maybe introduce some updated information) by pointing out that the American Psychological Association (APA) appears to recommend the first-person singular for works authored by a single person.

Furthermore, they problematize the use of third-person constructions (e.g., "The author ...").

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/first-person-pronouns

So most scientific papers are written with multiple voices. In the introduction the problem is discussed and the writing will refer to "This Study" or "This experiment" if it must refer to narrative person.

The second part describes the steps taken to get the results which will be discussed further in the paper. As this section is written as a set of instructions, the second person imperative voice is used, often with an implied "you" as the subject of the sentance (you do not write "you" but skip the subject and write the imperative verb.).

The next section is the results which is written in the form of a third person objective voice. In Third Person Objective, the writer should describe only the information that can be observed with the sense. This is often refered to as "Third Person Roving Camera" as most audio-visual media rely on Third Person Objective.

Finally, the conclusion should return to the same voice as the introduction. The conclusion should refer to the conclusion of the experiment and rely soley on the results as the basis of any statements made. The narrator should not speculate but merely states that the result sets do not support a conclusion to any questions or that the question asked is outside of the scope of the experiment or study.

Your Answer

Reminder: Answers generated by artificial intelligence tools are not allowed on Writing Stack Exchange. Learn more

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged style scientific-publishing or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went

Hot Network Questions

• Unsorted Intersection
• When Canadian citizen residing abroad comes to visit Canada
• Is James (the author of the Epistle of James) in the category of apostles?
• Sitting on a desk or at a desk? What's the diffrence?
• Can the US president kill at will?
• Why does `p` not put all yanked lines when copying across files?
• confidence interval and rejection
• Evil God Challenge: What if an evil god is just trolling humanity and that explains why there's good in the world?
• Cliffhanger ending?
• What's the point of Dream Chaser?
• I want to leave my current job during probation but I don't want to tell the next interviewer I am currently working
• Why are 16th note apoggiaturas not written as normal 16th notes?
• Why didn't Jimmy Neutron realize immediately when he read the note on the refrigerator that the note is phony, as the note says "son or daughter..."?
• How can you identify VDP on Prescott ILS 21L without DME?
• Why does the Trump immunity decision further delay the trial?
• Does Justice Sotomayor's "Seal Team 6" example, in and of itself, explicitly give the President the authority to execute opponents? If not, why not?
• Where is the pentagon in the Fibonacci sequence?
• As an advisor, how can I help students with time management and procrastination?
• Segments of a string, doubling in length
• Should "as a ..." and "unlike ..." clauses refer to the subject?
• How much damage does my Hexblade Warlock deal with their Bonus Action attack?
• How shall I find the device of a phone's storage so that I can mount it in Linux?
• What is this component - 8 legged inductor?
• Who first promoted the idea that the primary purpose of government is to protect its citizens?

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 24 June 2024

Bound star clusters observed in a lensed galaxy 460 Myr after the Big Bang

• Angela Adamo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-8091 1 ,
• Larry D. Bradley 2   na1 ,
• Eros Vanzella   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5228-9326 3   na1 ,
• Adélaïde Claeyssens 1 ,
• Brian Welch 4 , 5 ,
• Jose M. Diego   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9065-3926 6 ,
• Guillaume Mahler 7 , 8 , 9 ,
• Masamune Oguri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3484-399X 10 , 11 ,
• Keren Sharon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7559-0864 12 ,
• Abdurro’uf 2 , 13 ,
• Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao 2 , 13 ,
• Xinfeng Xu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-7051 14 , 15 ,
• Matteo Messa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1427-2456 3 ,
• Augusto E. Lassen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3575-8316 1 , 16 ,
• Erik Zackrisson 17 , 18 ,
• Gabriel Brammer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2680-005X 19 , 20 ,
• Dan Coe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7410-7669 2 , 13 , 21 ,
• Vasily Kokorev   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5588-9156 22 ,
• Massimo Ricotti 4 ,
• Adi Zitrin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0350-4488 23 ,
• Seiji Fujimoto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7201-5066 24 ,
• Akio K. Inoue   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7779-8677 25 , 26 ,
• Tom Resseguier   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0007-0522-7326 13 ,
• Jane R. Rigby   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7627-6551 5 ,
• Yolanda Jiménez-Teja 27 , 28 ,
• Rogier A. Windhorst 29 ,
• Takuya Hashimoto 30 , 31 &
• Yoichi Tamura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4807-8117 32  

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

879 Accesses

306 Altmetric

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

• Early universe
• Galaxies and clusters

The Cosmic Gems arc is among the brightest and highly magnified galaxies observed at redshift z ∼ 10.2 1 . However, it is an intrinsically UV faint galaxy, in the range of those now thought to drive the reionization of the universe 2–4 . Hitherto the smallest features resolved in a galaxy at a comparable redshift are between a few hundreds and a few tens of parsecs 5,6 . Here we report JWST observations of the Cosmic Gems. The light of the galaxy is resolved into five star clusters located in a region smaller than 70 parsec. They exhibit minimal dust attenuation and low metallicity, ages younger than 50 Myr and intrinsic masses of ∼ 10 6 M ⊙ . Their lensing-corrected sizes are approximately 1 pc, resulting in stellar surface densities near 10 5 M ⊙ /pc 2 , three orders of magnitude higher than typical young star clusters in the local universe 7 . Despite the uncertainties inherent to the lensing model, they are consistent with being gravitationally bound stellar systems, i.e., proto-globular clusters (proto-GCs). We conclude that star cluster formation and feedback likely contributed to 3 shape the properties of galaxies during the epoch of reionization.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

A highly magnified star at redshift 6.2

Spectroscopic confirmation of a mature galaxy cluster at a redshift of 2

Normal, dust-obscured galaxies in the epoch of reionization

Author information.

These authors contributed equally: Larry D. Bradley, Eros Vanzella

Authors and Affiliations

Astronomy Department, Stockholm University & Oskar Klein Centre, Roslagstullsbacken 21, Stockholm, Sweden

Angela Adamo, Adélaïde Claeyssens & Augusto E. Lassen

Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD, USA

Larry D. Bradley,  Abdurro’uf, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao & Dan Coe

Osservatorio di Astrofisica e Scienza dello Spazio di Bologna, INAF, via Gobetti 93/3, Bologna, Italy

Eros Vanzella & Matteo Messa

Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland, 4296 Stadium Drive, College Park, USA

Brian Welch & Massimo Ricotti

Astrophysics Science Division, Code 660, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Greenbelt, MD, USA

Brian Welch & Jane R. Rigby

Instituto de Física de Cantabria, (CSIC-UC), Avda. Los Castros s/n., Santander, Spain

Jose M. Diego

STAR Institute,Quartier Agora - Allée du six Août, 19c, Liège, Belgium

Guillaume Mahler

Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, Durham University, South Road, Durham, UK

Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, South Road, Durham, UK

Center for Frontier Science, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba, Japan

Masamune Oguri

Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba, Japan

Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 1085 S. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Keren Sharon

Center for Astrophysical Sciences, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N Charles St., Baltimore, MD, USA

Abdurro’uf, Tiger Yu-Yang Hsiao, Dan Coe & Tom Resseguier

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, 2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL, USA

Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA), Northwestern University, 1800 Sherman Avenue, Evanston, IL, USA

Instituto de Física, Departamento de Astronomia, Universe Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Avenida Bento Gonçalves, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Augusto E. Lassen

Observational Astrophysics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, Uppsala, Sweden

Erik Zackrisson

Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Linneanum, Thunbergsvägen 2, Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden

Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN), Copenhagen, Denmark

Gabriel Brammer

Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 128, Copenhagen, Denmark

Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) for the European Space Agency (ESA), STScI, Baltimore, MD, USA

Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Landleven 12, Groningen, Netherlands

Vasily Kokorev

Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Be’er-Sheva, Israel

Department of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Seiji Fujimoto

Department of Physics, School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan

Akio K. Inoue

Waseda Research Institute for Science and Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan

Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, (CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomía s/n., Granada, Spain

Yolanda Jiménez-Teja

Observatório Nacional, (MCTI), Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, São Cristóvão, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Rogier A. Windhorst

Division of Physics, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Takuya Hashimoto

Tomonaga Center for the History of the Universe (TCHoU), University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University, Furo, Chikusa, Nagoya, Japan

Yoichi Tamura

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Adamo .

Supplementary information

Peer review file, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Adamo, A., Bradley, L.D., Vanzella, E. et al. Bound star clusters observed in a lensed galaxy 460 Myr after the Big Bang. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

Download citation

Received : 06 January 2024

Accepted : 11 June 2024

Published : 24 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07703-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Why Are Companies That Lose Money Still So Successful?

• Vijay Govindarajan,
• Shivaram Rajgopal,
• Anup Srivastava,
• Aneel Iqbal,
• Elnaz Basirian

New research on how to identify investments that produce delayed but real profits — not just those that produce short-term accounting profits.

In a well-functioning capital market, profits should be the sole criterion for firm survival; that is, firms reporting losses should disappear. Of late, however, loss-making firms are highly sought after by investors — often more than some profitable firms. Unicorns, or startups with valuations exceeding a billion dollars, are examples of such loss-making firms. What has changed over time? When and why did losses lose their meaning? The authors’ series of new research papers provide some answers, guiding managers to make the right investments: those that produce delayed but real profits — not just those that produce short-term accounting profits but decimate shareholder wealth in long run.

In 1979, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky famously posited that losses loom larger than gains in human decision-making. For example, a dollar of loss affects our behavior more than a dollar of profits . Likewise, when a firm announces losses, its stock price declines more dramatically than it increases for the same dollar amount of profits. Investors abandon and lenders tend to stop financing loss-making firms , which then start restructuring their business lines and laying off employees. Some firms go even further, conducting M&A transactions without substance and “managing earnings” to report profits instead of a loss.

• Vijay Govindarajan is the Coxe Distinguished Professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business, an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, and faculty partner at the Silicon Valley incubator Mach 49. He is a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestselling author. His latest book is Fusion Strategy: How Real-Time Data and AI Will Power the Industrial Future . His Harvard Business Review articles “ Engineering Reverse Innovations ” and “ Stop the Innovation Wars ” won McKinsey Awards for best article published in HBR. His HBR articles “ How GE Is Disrupting Itself ” and “ The CEO’s Role in Business Model Reinvention ” are HBR all-time top-50 bestsellers. Follow him on LinkedIn . vgovindarajan
• Shivaram Rajgopal is the Roy Bernard Kester and T.W. Byrnes Professor of Accounting and Auditing and Vice Dean of Research at Columbia Business School. His research examines financial reporting and executive compensation issues and he is widely published in both accounting and finance.
• Anup Srivastava holds Canada Research Chair in Accounting, Decision Making, and Capital Markets and is a full professor at Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary. In a series of HBR articles, he examines the management implications of digital disruption. He specializes in the valuation and financial reporting challenges of digital companies. Follow Anup on  LinkedIn .
• Aneel Iqbal is an assistant professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University. He examines the accounting measurement and financial disclosures for new-economy firms and incorporates his wide-ranging industry experience into his research and teaching. He is a seasoned accounting and finance professional with diverse experience in auditing, financial analysis, business advisory, performance management, and executive training. Follow Aneel on LinkedIn .
• Elnaz Basirian is a PhD student at the Haskayne School of Business. She examines the influence and role of intangibles in accounting and finance, aimed at improving valuation and market efficiency. She brings a decade of work experience in international financial markets. Follow Elnaz on LinkedIn .

Partner Center

We use cookies to provide you with the best experience and to help improve our website. View Privacy Statement

A timeless resource: BGSU organizational change management research still highly sought after

Estimated Reading Time:  

The article “Organizational Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach” has been read more than 58,000 times

#1 University in Ohio for Student Experience

Innovative engineering degrees, #1 public university in the midwest students would choose again for the fourth consecutive year.

More than a decade after an article on organizational change management authored by current and retired Bowling Green State University faculty members was published, its groundbreaking research continues to draw interest.

According to ResearchGate, the “Organizational Diagnosis: An Evidence-Based Approach” article has been read more than 58,000 times since its publication in 2012. It is the most frequently read article from BGSU accessed through its site.

“Often in management, there’s a focus on results,” said Dr. James McFillen, an emeritus BGSU business professor and the paper’s lead author. “It intends to be results-oriented rather than cause-oriented. To fix something, you first have to know what is wrong.”

The article's origins date back to the early days of the BGSU Executive Master of Organization Development program, established in 1974 by Dr. Glenn Varney, an emeritus business professor and co-author alongside McFillen; Dr. Deborah A. O’Neil, a professor of management and director of the master’s program; and Dr. William Balzer, emeritus psychology professor.

The program, housed in the Allen W. and Carol M. Schmidthorst College of Business , was the first in Ohio and third in the nation and has been widely recognized for excellence.

Following Varney’s tenure as the program’s director, McFillen led the organization development master's program for more than 15 years, beginning in 1994. He focused on the scientific side of organizational behavior, sparking the work that resulted in the Journal of Change Management article that has drawn interest from various disciplines.

“I decided that if I was going to be involved, it needed to be a scientifically based, research-driven program,” McFillen said. “Over time, I reworked the curriculum to give it a more behavioral science orientation to explain how organizations function and how you could change them.”

During the process of shifting the program’s focus to research, McFillen realized a vital piece was missing — the diagnostic process of determining causes of problems within an organization. He said existing organization development literature offered information on fixing problems but didn’t explain the process of diagnosing them.

“You had all these people writing articles about their favorite things to do to improve organizations, but there was no science behind it,” he said.

To find a solution, McFillen and his colleagues reviewed disciplines that used a diagnostic process to analyze problems, narrowing it down to engineering and medicine. While engineering uses a scientific method to diagnose issues, the process doesn’t account for human behavior. Consequently, they concluded the medical diagnosis model was better suited to organization development.

Using a medical model, the BGSU faculty members developed the concept of organizational diagnosis as the key step toward effective change and have successfully used it in many situations. They developed a rigorous process to correctly identify “symptoms” of problems plaguing an organization.

“The article continually finds a new audience,” Varney said. “If you are going to make a change in an organization, you need to use a very systematic way of doing it. Otherwise, it will backfire on you every single time. Organizations are going through tremendous change these days, and that’s why I think they are still reading our article now.”

First presented in the 2012 article, McFillen and Varney’s methods were later conveyed in a book they co-authored with Scott Janoch, “Grasp the Situation: Lessons Learned in Change Leadership,” which presents the organizational diagnosis process through lively stories from the authors’ experiences.

Related Stories

Media Contact | Michael Bratton | [email protected] | 419-372-6349

Updated: 06/26/2024 01:04PM

• Skip to main content

Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence

June 28, 2024

The 39th Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

February 25 – March 4, 2025 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

• Accommodations and Travel
• Main Technical Track

Special Track on AI for Social Impact

• Demonstration Program
• EAAI-25 Call for Participation
• Undergraduate Consortium
• Become a Sponsor
• AAAI Code of Conduct for Conferences and Events
• Policies for AAAI-25 Authors
• Ethical Guidelines for AAAI-25
• Publications Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• Conference Organizers

Main Conference Timetable for Authors

Note: all deadlines are “anywhere on earth” (UTC-12)

July 8, 2024 AAAI-25 web site open for paper submission

August 7, 2024 Abstracts due at 11:59 PM UTC-12

August 15, 2024 Full papers due at 11:59 PM UTC-12

August 19, 2024 Supplementary material and code due by 11:59 PM UTC-12

October 14, 2024 Notification of Phase 1 rejections

November 4-8, 2024 Author feedback window

December 9, 2024 Notification of final acceptance or rejection (Main Technical Track)

December 19, 2024 Submission of camera-ready files (Main Technical Track)

February 27 – March 2, 2025 AAAI-25 Conference

Note: Deadlines are track-specific and may differ from those listed above. Track-specific deadlines are listed on their respective CFP.

Main Technical Track: Call for Papers

Plagiarism & use of chatgpt or similar llms policy.

Plagiarism and the Use of ChatGPT or similar LLMs Papers that include text generated from a large-scale language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT are prohibited unless the produced text is presented as a part of the paper’s experimental analysis. Note that this policy does not prohibit authors from using LLMs for editing or polishing author-written text.

AAAI’2025 furthermore follows AAAI policy that any AI system, including Generative Models such as Chat-GPT, BARD, or DALL-E, do not satisfy the criteria for authorship of papers published by AAAI and, as such, also cannot be used as a citable source in papers published by AAAI. Authors assume full responsibility for content, including checking for plagiarism and veracity of all text.

Any allegation of plagiarism, whether the result of the use of an LLM or otherwise, which comes to AAAI’s attention will be thoroughly investigated. If substantiated, the matter will be dealt with very seriously.  Possible sanctions include rejection/retraction of the work, notification to all the authors’ institutions or employers and any other relevant bodies, and denial of service for and access to all AAAI-sponsored meetings.

• Three technical tracks (Main Track; AI for Social Impact; AI Alignment)
• Two-phase reviewing: two reviews in Phase 1, additional reviews in Phase 2 for papers not rejected in Phase 1. Author response after Phase 2, only for papers not rejected in Phase 1.
• Three kinds of supplementary material may be submitted alongside all papers: (1) technical appendix; (2) multimedia; (3) code and data. Supplementary material deadline is 3 days after the paper submission deadline.
• Additional pages for references only.
• All authors must complete a reproducibility checklist, which facilitates replication of the reported research.
• All authors are expected to be available to review (light load), unless extenuating circumstances apply.
• Note that the NeurIPS fast track from previous years will not be included this year.  The submission deadline is after NeurIPS initial reviews are released, and authors must withdraw the paper from consideration at NeurIPS if they wish to submit to AAAI.

The purpose of the AAAI conference series is to promote research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and foster scientific exchange between researchers, practitioners, scientists, students, and engineers across the entirety of AI and its affiliated disciplines. AAAI-25 is the Thirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. As with AAAI-24, the theme of this conference is to create  collaborative bridges  within and beyond AI. In addition to the bridge theme, we emphasize the importance of AI for social impact and responsible AI. Like AAAI 2024 conference, AAAI-25 will feature technical paper presentations, special tracks, invited speakers, workshops, tutorials, poster sessions, senior member presentations, competitions, and exhibition programs, and two other activities: a Bridge Program and a Lab Program. Many of these activities are tailored to the theme of bridges and are selected according to the highest standards, with additional programs for students and young researchers.

AAAI-25 is an in-person conference.

Timetable for Authors

Please see the timetable in the sidebar .

​Collaborative Bridge Theme

Driven by its disciplinary diversity, AAAI has incubated numerous AI sub-disciplines and conferences and has nurtured for decades the cohesion of AI. New communities often emerge when two or more disciplines come together in order to explore new opportunities and perspectives; today, both are plentiful. The purpose of this year’s Bridge Program is to tap into new sources of innovation by cultivating collaboration between two or more communities directed towards a common goal. Our interpretation of bridges is broad and encompasses disciplines within and outside of AI. Hence, the communities that our Bridge Program is intended to bring together could be distinct subfields of AI, such as planning and learning, or different disciplines that contribute to and benefit from AI, such as AI and the humanities.

AAAI-25 welcomes submissions reporting research that advances artificial intelligence, broadly conceived. The conference scope includes machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, data mining, multiagent systems, knowledge representation, human-in-the-loop AI, search, planning, reasoning, robotics and perception, and ethics. In addition to fundamental work focused on any one of these areas, we expressly encourage work that cuts across technical areas of AI (e.g., machine learning and computer vision; computer vision and natural language processing; or machine learning and planning), bridges between AI and a related research area (e.g., neuroscience; cognitive science), or develops AI techniques in the context of important application domains, such as healthcare, sustainability, transportation, and commerce.

The set of AAAI-25 keywords is available on the AAAI-25 keywords page . The author’s guide for choosing the best keywords describes important considerations in selecting keywords for a paper.

Most papers in AAAI-25 will be part of the main track. All main track papers will be reviewed according to the same criteria and via the same process. This conference has two special tracks, which focus on AI for Social Impact , and Safe, Robust, and Responsible AI . Papers in the special tracks will be reviewed according to a different evaluation rubric than papers in the main track. The same reviewing schedule will be followed for all papers.

As in past years, AAAI-25 will include a special track on AI for Social Impact (AISI). Submissions to this track will be reviewed according to a rubric that emphasizes the fit between the techniques used and a problem of social importance, rather than simply rewarding technical novelty. In particular, reviewers will assess the significance of the addressed problem; the paper’s engagement with previous literature on the application problem (whether in the AI literature or elsewhere); both novelty of and justification for the proposed AI-based approach; quality of evaluation; facilitation of follow-up work; and overall scope and promise for social impact. Further details are available at the AISI page .

Special Track on AI Alignment

This year we are introducing a special track on AI alignment.  This track is motivated by the fact that as we begin to build more and more capable AI systems, it becomes crucial to ensure that the goals and actions of such systems are aligned with human values.  To accomplish this, we need to understand the risks of these systems and research methods to mitigate these risks. Further details are available on the AIA page, including review criteria specific to this track.

Authors should think carefully about which track is most appropriate for their work. For example, a paper that emphasizes methodological contributions and makes weak connections to a social impact application or weak connections to problems fundamental to safety and robustness may be better suited in the main technical track.

Review Criteria

AAAI is a highly selective conference. Prospective authors are therefore strongly encouraged to submit only their very best work to AAAI.

All submissions will be rigorously evaluated by expert reviewers to assess whether the contributions of the paper are substantive enough to warrant publication in AAAI.

The contributions may be theoretical, methodological, algorithmic, empirical, integrative (connecting ideas and methods across disparate subfields of AI), or critical (e.g., principled analyses and arguments that draw attention to fundamentally wrong choice of goals, assumptions, or approaches). Evaluation of submissions to the AI for Social Impact track should emphasize demonstrated or potential impact of the research in addressing pressing societal challenges, e.g., health, food, environment, education, governance, among others. Evaluation of submissions to the Safe, Robust, and Responsible AI track should demonstrate focused, tangible progress towards AI systems that are safe, robust, and act responsibly either at the theoretical and practical level.

All submissions will be evaluated and scored for the significance and novelty of the contributions (research problems or questions addressed, methods, experiments, analyses), theoretical and/or empirical soundness of the claims, their relevance to the AAAI community, and clarity of exposition.

Additional considerations include adherence to responsible research practices (e.g., with respect to human subject studies, use of sensitive data, as well as data and algorithmic bias), and of steps to ensure reproducibility of research results (e.g., by providing detailed proofs, documenting experiments, sharing data, and sharing code).

Solid, technical papers that explore new territory or point out new directions for research, or introduce new problems, address research questions, or introduce methods that are of interest beyond a single sub-area of AI are preferred to papers that advance the state of the art, but only incrementally, or only within a narrow sub-area of AI.

Detailed Instructions

More specific details are on the following pages:

• Submission Instructions
• AAAI-25 Author Kit
• Supplementary material
• Review process
• AI for Social Impact Track
• AI Alignment Track
• Paper Modification Guidelines
• Paper Publication and Conference Attendance
• Affiliated Events

Questions and Suggestions

Please send queries about conference registration to [email protected].  Other general inquiries to the AAAI-25 General and Program Co-chairs can be directed to [email protected] .

Privacy Overview

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Is it recommended to use "we" in research papers?

Is it recommended to use "we" in research papers? If not, should I always use passive voice?

• writing-style
• passive-voice

• Related: Style Question: Use of “we” vs. “I” vs. passive voice in a dissertation –  herisson Commented Dec 3, 2016 at 16:12
• 1 It's over a decade late, but I've seen multiple answers and comments here suggest use of subjects like "I" and "this researcher", so I feel obligated to point out that for papers going under double-blind peer review, use of such singular subjects can significantly bias the reviewer by tipping them off to the fact that there is only one author. This is effectively a form of de-anonymization, and it would make sense for some publishers to consider this a bad thing. In such a case, "we" might be preferred over "I"... but you should definitely check with the publisher to be sure. –  Alexander Guyer Commented Feb 15, 2022 at 5:57

3 Answers 3

We is used in papers with multiple authors. Even in papers having only one author/researcher, we is used to draw the reader into the discussion at hand. Moreover, there are several ways to avoid using the passive voice in the absence of we . On the one hand, there are many instances where the passive voice cannot be avoided, while, on the other, we can also be overused to the point of irritation. Variety is indeed the spice of a well written scientific paper, but the bottom line is to convey the information as succinctly as possible.

• 1 Thanks, Jimi. So you suggest that using "we" not a really bad thing as long as not overusing it, right? –  evergreen Commented Mar 2, 2011 at 23:46
• @evergreen: Definitely. Take a look at the best papers out there; we is used liberally. It really cannot be avoided, especially in experimental research writing. –  Jimi Oke Commented Mar 2, 2011 at 23:48
• 5 Since this is an English site, I feel obliged to point out that “at the end of the day” and “the bottom line is” are almost synonym, and anyway close enough in meaning to clash horribly when put next to each other. Furthermore, you simply can’t follow “the bottom line is” with “on the other hand”. That contradicts the whole meaning of “bottom line”. –  Konrad Rudolph Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 8:34
• @Konrad: Great points you make here. I don't necessarily agree with your final sentences, but I guess I went for too much color, resulting in an overkill of idiomatic phrases. But this is not a well-written scientific paper :) And I guess it also shows that too much spice is usually not a good thing! –  Jimi Oke Commented Mar 4, 2011 at 1:13
• There is alleged to be a research paper, by a single author, who wrote: "We with to thank our wife for her understanding..." –  GEdgar Commented Nov 14, 2011 at 15:22

APA (The American Psychology Association) has the following to say about the use of "we" (p. 69-70).

To avoid ambiguity, use a personal pronoun rather than the third person when describing steps taken in your experiment. Correct: "We reviewed the literature." Incorrect: "The authors reviewed the literature." [...] For clarity, restrict your use of "we" to refer only to yourself and your coauthors (use "I" if you are the sole author of the paper). Broader uses of "we" may leave your readers wondering to whom you are referring; instead, substitute an appropriate noun or clarity your usage: Correct: "Researchers usually classify birdsong on the basis of frequency and temporal structure of the elements. Incorrect: "We usually classify birdsong on the basis of frequency and temporal structure of the elements" Some alternatives to "we" to consider are "people", "humans", "researchers", "psychologists", "nurses", and so on. "We" is an appropriate and useful referent: Correct: "As behaviorists, we tend to dispute... Incorrect: "We tend to dispute..."

It's definitely OK to use "we" in research papers. I edit them professionally and see it used frequently.

However, many papers with multiple authors use such constructions as "the investigators," or "the researchers." In practice, there really aren't that many occasions when the authors of a scientific paper need to refer to themselves as agents. It happens, sure. But not that often.

Rather, the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion sections should speak for themselves. Any reference to the authors should be minimal as except in rare cases they are not germane to the findings.

• 1 “It’s definitely OK” … well, if it’s merely OK, then what are the alternatives? Using the passive voice extensively sounds stilted and sometimes a pronoun simply cannot be involved. So is “I” OK when writing as a single author? In my experience, this is a complete no-go for various reasons. –  Konrad Rudolph Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 8:37
• 5 As noted above, instead of "I," constructions such as "this researcher" are normal. "We" is a pronoun used when one author is writing on behalf of a team or group, but usually "the researchers" or the passive voice is used. It also depends on both the field and the journal in question. –  The Raven Commented Mar 3, 2011 at 12:19

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged pronouns writing-style passive-voice or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went

Hot Network Questions

• Cliffhanger ending?
• When Canadian citizen residing abroad comes to visit Canada
• Did any 8-bit machine select palette by character name instead of color memory?
• What is the purpose of the BJT in this circuit?
• Is there a customizable version of the `\boldmath` command?
• Java: Benchmark findFirst() and findAny() methods on non-parallel streams
• Why does `p` not put all yanked lines when copying across files?
• Unsorted Intersection
• Are US enlisted personnel (as opposed to officers) required, or allowed, to disobey unlawful orders?
• Short exact sequence in the ideal class group
• As an advisor, how can I help students with time management and procrastination?
• Are all Starship/Super Heavy "cylinders" 4mm thick?
• Clifford algebra as a functor
• What's the history of Spell Slots in D&D?
• Evil God Challenge: What if an evil god is just trolling humanity and that explains why there's good in the world?
• Measure by mass vs. 'Spooned and Leveled'
• Concrete works by Alexandre Grothendieck, other than Dessin d'Enfants?
• Hourly pay rate calculation between Recruiting and Payroll Systems
• "beziehen sie sich auf" as translation for "refer to"?
• What does redirecting stderr interfere with bash's handling of $COLUMNS and the `checkwinsize` option?
• If a lambda is declared as a default argument, is it different for each call site?
• Is there a way to do artificial gravity testing of spacecraft on the ground in KSP?
• Plane to train in Copenhagen
• Why is Uranus colder than Neptune?

Get the Reddit app

This subreddit is for discussing academic life, and for asking questions directed towards people involved in academia, (both science and humanities).

Using "we" in a single-author paper

Hi all! I'm a grad student studying in the US and english is not my first language so I was hoping you all could settle a question for me. A professor recently questioned if I had written a paper by myself or not because I used the royal/academic "we". I obviously wrote the paper by myself, but I used "we" since that is how I was taught. My professor made it a point to tell me that they had never heard or seen anyone write as "we" in a single-author paper before. Is it really that unheard of? Also, would you say this usage is merely out of date or is it flat-out wrong? Thank you!

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Should I say "I" in a paper, as the sole author? [duplicate]

I am the sole author of a paper which I would like to publish in a journal.

Is it better to use "I" for example "In this paper, I present xyz"

Or is better to avoid "I" like "In this paper, xyz is presented"

• publications

Answer : even with a single authored papers, you should normally use " we ", not "I".

"In this paper we present a very interesting theory of everything. We do this by invoking the idea of...".

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

• Featured on Meta
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• Why does the Trump immunity decision further delay the trial?
• Seeing edges where there are no edges
• If a lambda is declared as a default argument, is it different for each call site?
• Short exact sequence in the ideal class group
• Imagining Graham's number in your head collapses your head to a black hole
• Which of the following values can the expression NOT take?
• Are there any parts of the US Constitution that state that the laws apply universally to all citizens?
• Cliffhanger ending?
• Are all Starship/Super Heavy "cylinders" 4mm thick?
• When Canadian citizen residing abroad comes to visit Canada
• Do thermodynamic cycles occur only in human-made machines?
• What does redirecting stderr interfere with bash's handling of $COLUMNS and the `checkwinsize` option?
• Pregnancy in a hibernated state
• Greek myth about an athlete who kills another man with a discus
• Should "as a ..." and "unlike ..." clauses refer to the subject?
• GDPR Data Processor
• LED does not blink when transmitting/receiving UART
• Why is pressure in the outermost layer of a star lower than at its center?
• Why is a game's minor update on Steam (e.g., New World) ~15 GB to download?
• What's the history of Spell Slots in D&D?
• Mathematical expression of controlled Ry gate
• How to manage talkover in meetings?
• openssh-client/openssh-server show different version than ssh -V
• Airtight beaks?