[Epa095]

This differes between fields, sometimes even down to the niche subject. In my subfield (of computer science) it was strictly alphabetical by surname, and the idea was that either you contributed or not, and there is no gradient. In other fields it's 'main author' and everyone else, with the expectation that main author does more. Some have the group leader as the first name, or the 'big shot' is always first. My impression is that in medicine it is often a kind of ranking from 'most to least' main author.

[potato-peeler]

> the idea was that either you contributed or not, and there is no gradient

Is the work predefined,ie, how much will each person do?

> Some have the group leader as the first name, or the 'big shot' is always first. My impression is that in medicine it is often a kind of ranking from 'most to least' main author

Does this affect your standing in workplace or industry? When we read about papers in scientific journals, news, or even arxiv, they mostly refer to the work based on first name, like “potato-peeler et al”. Sure it’s for brevity But when you look at the authors, there maybe 10 ppl listed. I have always wondered how do they get recognised. Since Like you mentioned they have to contribute. If they contribute but their names get swallowed up within “et al”, how does someone know how much was their contribution?