Authorship issue in collaborative projects

[random_number]

As for authorship order, my case would be a bit complicated since, in my field, authors are generally alphabetically ordered.

I've heard of this (for physics I think? I'm sure there are others) and been mystified by it-- how do you determine relative contributions from looking at papers in these fields? Are there extensive author statements? Or is it assumed everyone contributes equally (which seems unlikely)?

I think the alphabetical ordering is following Hardy-Littlewood Rule(https://moleseyhill.com/2010-03-22-hardy-littlewood-rules.html) in a few fields.

[random_number]

I see author statements being increasingly used to detail contributions in multi-authored papers. I am big fan of the Credit taxonomy so I would definitely encourage you to use that in your paper.

I think it's a nice practice to detail contributions in author statements. This is, though, not yet widely employed in my field. But really thanks for the suggestion!

Whether you need to have co-authors in the first place depends on the specifics of the situation - and sometimes on other considerations. Maybe you can elaborate a bit on what the collaboration entails (or was supposed to) in your case?

I think generally in a collaborative paper, co-authors should at least contribute in one of the following categories: coming up with the idea, design research strategy, collecting data (if any data is needed in the project), data analysis, results interpretation, funding support, supervising and manuscript writing-up.

Up to now, all the results prepared for publication (including the idea, the methodology, and analysis) are from my work. Thus I feel it's difficult.

[random_number]

In my experience with collaborative teams, being overly generous on authorship on the first paper leads to a poorer collaboration environment in the future. Your collaborators expect to be held to the conventional standard. If you fail to do that they will either exploit you in the future or see you as too weak a collaborator. Those two opposing motivations both lead to the result that they don't to their part in the future.

:( That's sad... Being the only one on the front line already doesn't feel good in my case.

[Hibush]

As for authorship order, my case would be a bit complicated since, in my field, authors are generally alphabetically ordered.

I've heard of this (for physics I think? I'm sure there are others) and been mystified by it-- how do you determine relative contributions from looking at papers in these fields? Are there extensive author statements? Or is it assumed everyone contributes equally (which seems unlikely)?

I think the alphabetical ordering is following Hardy-Littlewood Rule(https://moleseyhill.com/2010-03-22-hardy-littlewood-rules.html) in a few fields.

That model was based on a unique career-long relationship that depended on the two peculiar mathematicians and the career positions they held. Trying to apply that structure where some or all of those assumptions are absent will not work.

[Hibush]

In my experience with collaborative teams, being overly generous on authorship on the first paper leads to a poorer collaboration environment in the future. Your collaborators expect to be held to the conventional standard. If you fail to do that they will either exploit you in the future or see you as too weak a collaborator. Those two opposing motivations both lead to the result that they don't to their part in the future.

:( That's sad... Being the only one on the front line already doesn't feel good in my case.

While you have a minor aspect of your work that does not feel good, it sounds as if you should be feeling good about the major aspects of your work. You have done a meritorious piece of scholarship. Sure you talked to some people in the course of doing it. That is good practice in any research. But in the end, this is your scholarship. This is your achievement. You have every reason to be proud of the single-author publication you are preparing, and to be proud of the recognition you get after publishing.