Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University , Dublin, Ireland.
School of Humanities, The University of Southern Mississippi , Hattiesburg, MS, USA.
Account Res. 2020 Nov;27(8):496-520. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1776122. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
Over the past several years, there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific articles with two or more authors claiming "Equal Co-First Authorship" (ECFA). This study provides a critical background to ECFA designations, discusses likely causes of its increased use, and explores arguments for and against the practice. Subsequently, it presents the results of a qualitative study that sought the opinion of 19 authors listed among equal first authors of recent publications in leading scientific journals about ECFA designations. Results show that circumstances leading to ECFA designations vary significantly from each other. While the development of policies for these situations would not be easy, participants suggested that the lack of clear and consistent policies regarding the attribution and evaluation of ECFA contributes to tensions amongst ECFA authors and obscures their preferred attributions of credit.
在过去的几年中，有越来越多的科学论文有两个或更多的作者声称“平等共同第一作者”（ECFA）。本研究为 ECFA 的指定提供了重要的背景，讨论了其使用增加的可能原因，并探讨了支持和反对这种做法的论点。随后，它展示了一项定性研究的结果，该研究征求了 19 名在知名科学期刊上发表的平等第一作者最近出版物的作者对 ECFA 指定的意见。结果表明，导致 ECFA 指定的情况差异很大。虽然制定这些情况的政策并不容易，但参与者认为，缺乏关于 ECFA 的归因和评估的明确和一致的政策，导致 ECFA 作者之间的紧张关系，并掩盖了他们对信用归因的偏好。
