w*****3
发帖数: 1582 | 1 最近看到有一些文章，通讯作者是倒数第二个作者，最后一个作者是实验室里的senior
博士后，第一作者是实验室里的junior 博士后，比如果说这个文章。
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7323/pdf/nature09526
这样排序可能是为了强调senior postdoc 有独立工作的能力，但是如果只是last
author, 但不是co通讯作者能够被承认吗？ | g****1
发帖数: 261 | 2
senior
I personally think it's worse than putting it before the 通讯作者.
I think that the rule of the thumb is that if you are not corresponding
author, the closer to the first, the better; if you are corresponding
author, the closer to the last, the better :)
【在 w*****3 的大作中提到】
: 最近看到有一些文章，通讯作者是倒数第二个作者，最后一个作者是实验室里的senior
: 博士后，第一作者是实验室里的junior 博士后，比如果说这个文章。
: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7323/pdf/nature09526
: 这样排序可能是为了强调senior postdoc 有独立工作的能力，但是如果只是last
: author, 但不是co通讯作者能够被承认吗？
| b*****n
发帖数: 1841 | 3 almost aglee.
In this case, it might mislead people when he put the paper in his CV, since
most of people would not specify whether he is coresponding author or not.
Some very kind PIs let the first author be the corresponding author, while
he only puts his name in the last. In this case...
【在 g****1 的大作中提到】
:
: senior
: I personally think it's worse than putting it before the 通讯作者.
: I think that the rule of the thumb is that if you are not corresponding
: author, the closer to the first, the better; if you are corresponding
: author, the closer to the last, the better :)
|
|
