lead author research paper

If you’ve done more than a handful of citations during your research career, you’ve seen examples of lead and co-authorship in action. This behavior of labeling writers of a paper is becoming more and more common as teamwork in the field of academics takes on steam.

Although it’s not uncommon to have multiple authors on one paper, differentiating between a co-author and the lead author isn’t as cut and dried as one might assume. The first name in the citation would make you believe that this placement means the author did the majority share of the work in the research and writing process. But determining who did more than someone else isn’t something everyone agrees upon, and if this isn’t delineated clearly before the work begins, it can lead to misunderstandings and possible misconduct.

Defining Each Role

Before you start working with a partner, one of the very first things you should do is communicate regarding each other’s definition of authorship. Coming to an agreement early can minimize any arguments or dissent before publishing the works.

To help you get started, here are the working definitions of lead and co-authors according to the accepted principles of academic publishing:

●      A lead author is an individual that has likely initiated the research topic and carried out the research. They take the load of the writing and editing tasks on their shoulders, beginning the document, adding the majority of the content, running final drafts through editing tools, or hiring an editor to review the manuscript. Their name is typically listed first on the manuscript’s authorship sections.

●      Co-authors, on the other hand, will collaborate with the lead author. They are listed as an author because they make a significant contribution to the research and the paper, but it is not a majority contribution. They may come into the project after the lead author has begun the process of creating the experiment and finding funding, but they share the responsibility and accountability for the final outcome.

Use these two definitions to determine who in the team is going to do what tasks, then decide in writing who the lead and co-authors will be. This can be adjusted later with everyone’s approval should one person fail to fill their roles, or another step up and replace a lead author.

Factors Used When Splitting Up Attribution

Still not sure how to split the hairs when it comes to attribution? There are some factors that eliminate assumptions and capitalize on factual data—you know, the stuff that every researcher can agree upon.

Because the label of author vs. co-author can make a major difference in one’s career, both academically and financially, this is a designation to take very seriously. In a new team, or with a new member of the team, these rules tend to get rid of gray areas:

●      Lead authors make substantial contributions throughout almost every stage of the work, including acquisition, interpretation of data, analysis, and outcome

●      Lead authors draft the work and play a major role in the critical revisions prior to publishing

●      Lead authors have final approval of the work before it is sent in for approval or rejection from a publishing agency

●      The team agrees that everyone is accountable for their part of the work, but a lead author takes accountability for the entire project, whether the active part of the job was theirs or not

●      The lead author is the one who is questioned if there are any inaccuracies or questions of integrity; this person follows these investigations through their resolution.

When you clearly display the role of a lead author, many people who thought they wanted the job description don’t mind taking a step back. It’s a lot of pressure, and a hefty load of responsibility in the event that the work has any accountability or integrity issues called into question.

Monitoring Your Authorship With Impactio

However, whether you’re a lead author or your name falls behind someone else’s on the publication, it’s important to follow your authorship impact. You can do this with Impactio’s research tools. Impactio is America’s leading platform in academic analytics tools, and the free report features let you clearly see where your work is leading the way or falling short in certain areas.

With Impactio, you can build a team of professionals from all over the world, work together to come up with authorship decisions, and complete almost all the research you need by connecting online. When you’re ready to boost your professional reputation, start with Impactio.

• Afghanistan
• Åland Islands
• American Samoa
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Bouvet Island
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Cayman Islands
• Central African Republic
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
• Cook Islands
• Côte d'Ivoire
• Curacao !Curaçao
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• Faroe Islands
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• French Southern Territories
• Guinea-Bissau
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Isle of Man
• Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of)
• Korea (Republic of)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liechtenstein
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia (Federated States of)
• Moldova (Republic of)
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Norfolk Island
• North Macedonia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Palestine, State of
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Martin (French part)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• South Sudan
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turkmenistan
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• United States of America
• United States Minor Outlying Islands
• Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
• Virgin Islands (British)
• Virgin Islands (U.S.)
• Wallis and Futuna
• Western Sahara

Office of the Provost

Guidance on authorship in scholarly or scientific publications, general principles.

The public’s trust in and benefit from academic research and scholarship relies upon all those involved in the scholarly endeavor adhering to the highest ethical standards, including standards related to publication and dissemination of findings and conclusions.

Accordingly, all scholarly or scientific publications involving faculty, staff, students and/or trainees arising from academic activities performed under the auspices of Yale University must include appropriate attribution of authorship and disclosure of relevant affiliations of those involved in the work, as described below.

These publications, which, for the purposes of this guidance, include articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication, presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding, must appropriately acknowledge contributions of colleagues involved in the design, conduct or dissemination of the work by neither overly attributing contribution nor ignoring meaningful contributions.

Financial and other supporting relationships of those involved in the scholarly work must be transparent and disclosed in publications arising from the work.

Authorship Standards

Authorship of a scientific or scholarly paper should be limited to those individuals who have contributed in a meaningful and substantive way to its intellectual content. All authors are responsible for fairly evaluating their roles in the project as well as the roles of their co-authors to ensure that authorship is attributed according to these standards in all publications for which they will be listed as an author.

Requirement for Attribution of Authorship

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for its content. All co-authors should have been directly involved in all three of the following:

• planning and contribution to some component (conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation) of the work which led to the paper or interpreting at least a portion of the results;
• writing a draft of the article or revising it for intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published.  All authors should review and approve the manuscript before it is submitted for publication, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

Some diversity exists across academic disciplines regarding acceptable standards for substantive contributions that would lead to attribution of authorship. This guidance is intended to allow for such variation to disciplinary best practices while ensuring authorship is not inappropriately assigned.

Lead Author

The first author is usually the person who has performed the central experiments of the project. Often, this individual is also the person who has prepared the first draft of the manuscript. The lead author is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all other authors meet the requirements for authorship as well as ensuring the integrity of the work itself. The lead author will usually serve as the corresponding author.

Co-Author(s)

Each co-author is responsible for considering his or her role in the project and whether that role merits attribution of authorship. Co-authors should review and approve the manuscript, at least as it pertains to their roles in the project.

External Collaborators, Including Sponsor or Industry Representatives

Individuals who meet the criteria for authorship should be included as authors irrespective of their institutional affiliations. In general, the use of “ghostwriters” is prohibited, i.e., individuals who have contributed significant portions of the text should be named as authors or acknowledged in the final publication. Industry representatives or others retained by industry who contribute to an article and meet the requirements for authorship or acknowledgement must be appropriately listed as contributors or authors on the article and their industry affiliation must be disclosed in the published article.

Acknowledgements

Individuals who do not meet the requirements for authorship but who have provided a valuable contribution to the work should be acknowledged for their contributing role as appropriate to the publication.

Courtesy or Gift Authorship

Individuals do not satisfy the criteria for authorship merely because they have made possible the conduct of the research and/or the preparation of the manuscript. Under no circumstance should individuals be added as co-authors based on the individual’s stature as an attempt to increase the likelihood of publication or credibility of the work. For example, heading a laboratory, research program, section, or department where the research takes place does not, by itself, warrant co-authorship of a scholarly paper. Nor should “gift” co-authorship be conferred on those whose only contributions have been to provide, for example, routine technical services, to refer patients or participants for a study, to provide a valuable reagent, to assist with data collection and assembly, or to review a completed manuscript for suggestions. Although not qualifying as co-authors, individuals who assist the research effort may warrant appropriate acknowledgement in the completed paper.

Senior faculty members should be named as co-authors on work independently generated by their junior colleagues only if they have made substantial intellectual contributions to the experimental design, interpretation of findings and manuscript preparation.

Authorship Disputes

Determinations of authorship roles are often complex, delicate and potentially controversial. To avoid confusion and conflict, discussion of attribution should be initiated early in the development of any collaborative publication. For disputes that cannot be resolved amicably, individuals may seek the guidance of the dean of their school or the cognizant deputy provost in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences.

Disclosure of Research Funding and Other Support

In all scientific and scholarly publications and all manuscripts submitted for publication, authors should acknowledge the sources of support for all activities leading to and facilitating preparation of the publication or manuscript, including, but not limited to:

• grant, contract, and gift support;
• salary support if other than institutional funds. Note that salary support that is provided to the University by an external entity does not constitute institutional funds by virtue of being distributed by the University; and
• technical or other support if substantive and meaningful to the completion of the project.

Disclosure of Financial Interests and External Activities

Authors should fully disclose related financial interests and outside activities in publications (including articles, abstracts, manuscripts submitted for publication), presentations at professional meetings, and applications for funding.

In addition, authors should comply with the disclosure requirements of the University’s Committee on Conflict of Interest.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

A Guide to Authorship in Research and Scholarly Publishing

Scientific and academic authorship in research publishing is a critical part of a researcher’s career. However, the concept of authorship in research p ublication can be confusing for early career researchers, who often find it difficult to assess whether their or others’ contribution to a project are enough to warrant authorship. Today, there are more opportunities than ever to collaborate with researchers, not just across the globe but also across different disciplines and even those outside academia. This rapid growth in the number of global research collaborations, and has also led to an increase in the number of authors per paper. 1 For instance, a paper that was published on the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN set the record for the largest author list with over 5,000 authors. 2 Such cases act as catalysts for ongoing discussions among the research community about authorship in research and who should and who shouldn’t be credited and held accountable for published research.  

Table of Contents

So how do you define authorship in research?

The most common definition of authorship in research is the one established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). According to ICMJE’s guidelines, to be acknowledged as an author, a researcher should have met all of the following criteria. An author would have made major contributions to the research idea or study design, or data collection and analysis. They would have been part of the process of writing and revising the research manuscript and would be called on to give final approval on the version being published. Finally, an author must ensure the research is done ethically and accurately and should be willing to stand up and defend their work as needed.  

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the best time to decide authorship in research , in terms of who should be named authors and in what order , is before the research project is initiated. It recommends researchers create and keep written author agreements and to revisit the author list as the project evolves. 3 Consequently, any changes authorship in research either in a researcher’s level of involvement, or the addition or exclusion of members during the project must be approved by all involved and must reflect in the author byline.

Understanding the difference between author and contributor roles

Given the constant increase in scholarly publishing and the continuing pressures to “publish or perish,” many researchers are choosing to participate in multi-author projects. This makes it harder to decide on authorship in research as one needs to differentiate between authors, co-authors, and contributors and this often leads to confusion over accountabilities and entitlements.  

• Lead authors or first authors in publication are those who undertake original research and also drafts and edits the research manuscript. They also play a major role in journal submission and must review and agree on the corrections submitted by all the authors.  
• Co-authors are those who make a major contribution to and are also equally responsible for the research results; they work hand in hand with lead authors to help them create and revise the research paper for journal submission.  
• Corresponding authors are those who sign the publishing agreement on behalf of all the authors and manage all the correspondence around the article. They are tasked with ensuring ethical guidelines are followed, author affiliations and contact details are correct, and that the authors are listed in the right order.  
• Contributors are those who may have provided valuable resources and assistance with planning and conducting the research but may not have written or edited the research paper. While not assigned authorship in research papers, they are typically listed at the end of the article along with a precise description of each person’s contribution.  

Getting the order of listing authors right

The order of authorship in research being published plays an important role for scientific merit; probably as important to a researcher’s career as the number of papers they published. However, the practice of accrediting positions when deciding authorship in research differs greatly between different research streams and often becomes a bone of contention among authors.  

There are some common formats used to determine author listing in research. One common format is when authors are generally listed in the order of their contributions, with the main author of the paper being listed at the end. This honor is typically reserved for the head of the department in which the research was carried out. This kind of listing sometimes creates angst among authors, as they feel that the order does not reflect the significance of their contributions. Another common format is one where authors are listed alphabetically. While this might seem like a more equitable solution when listing authorship in research , it has its own disadvantages. If the main author’s name begins with a letter late in the alphabet, it is very likely to be overlooked when the paper is cited by others, clearly not a very happy scenario for the main author.  

Unfortunately, globally and across research arenas, there is still no uniform understanding or system for the ordering of author names on research papers. And journals do not normally step in to arbitrate such disputes on authorship in research . Individual authors and contributors are expected to evaluate their role in a project and attribute authorship in research papers in keeping with set publication standards. Clearly, the responsibility falls entirely on authors to discuss and agree on the best way to list authors.  

Avoiding unethical authorship in research  

Correctly conveying who is responsible for published scientific research is at the very core of scientific integrity. However, despite clearly outlined guidelines and definitions, scholarly publishing continues to be plagued by numerous issues and ethical concerns regarding the attribution of authorship in research . According to The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), 4 instances of unethical authorship in research papers include:

• Changing the order of authors in an unjustified and improper way
• Using personal authority to add someone as an author without their contributing to the work
• Eliminating contributor names from later publications
• Adding a name as author without the person’s consent

A uthors need to be aware of and understand the nuances of ethical authorship in research papers to avoid confusion, conflict and ill-will among the co-authors and contributors. While researchers receive recognition and credit for their intellectual work, they are also held accountable for what they publish. It is important to remember that the primary responsibility of research authors is to preserve scientific integrity, which can only happen if research is conducted and documented ethically.  

• Mazzocchi F. Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. EMBO Reports, June 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6549017/
• Castelvecchi, D. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature, May 2015. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17567
• Dance, A. Authorship: Who’s on first?. Nature, September 2012. https://www.nature.com/articles/nj7417-591a
• Unethical Authorship; How to Avoid? Blog – Canadian Institute for Knowledge Development, February 2020. https://icndbm.cikd.ca/unethical-authorship-how-to-avoid/

Related Posts

What are the Best Research Funding Sources

Inductive vs. Deductive Research Approach

Loading metrics

Open Access

Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper

* E-mail: [email protected]

¶ ‡ MAF is the lead author. All authors contributed equally to this work. Besides for MAF, author order was computed randomly.

Affiliation Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

Affiliation Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Affiliation Marine Institute, Furnace, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland

Affiliation Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America

Affiliation UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Lake Research, Magdeburg, Germany

Affiliation Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Affiliation Department of Biology, Pomona College, Claremont, California, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Ecology and Genetics/Limnology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Affiliation Department of Geography, Geology, and the Environment, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America

Affiliation Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Girona, Spain

• Marieke A. Frassl, 
• David P. Hamilton, 
• Blaize A. Denfeld, 
• Elvira de Eyto, 
• Stephanie E. Hampton, 
• Philipp S. Keller, 
• Sapna Sharma, 
• Abigail S. L. Lewis, 
• Gesa A. Weyhenmeyer, 

Published: November 15, 2018

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508
• Reader Comments

Citation: Frassl MA, Hamilton DP, Denfeld BA, de Eyto E, Hampton SE, Keller PS, et al. (2018) Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. PLoS Comput Biol 14(11): e1006508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508

Editor: Fran Lewitter, Whitehead Institute, UNITED STATES

Copyright: © 2018 Frassl et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON; www.gleon.org ). ML and PK received the GLEON student travel fund. GW was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Grant No. 2016-04153. NC had the support of the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral programme (BP-2016-00215). PK was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant SP 1570/1-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Science is increasingly done in large teams [ 1 ], making it more likely that papers will be written by several authors from different institutes, disciplines, and cultural backgrounds. A small number of “Ten simple rules” papers have been written on collaboration [ 2 , 3 ] and on writing [ 4 , 5 ] but not on combining the two. Collaborative writing with multiple authors has additional challenges, including varied levels of engagement of coauthors, provision of fair credit through authorship or acknowledgements, acceptance of a diversity of work styles, and the need for clear communication. Miscommunication, a lack of leadership, and inappropriate tools or writing approaches can lead to frustration, delay of publication, or even the termination of a project.

To provide insight into collaborative writing, we use our experience from the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) [ 6 ] to frame 10 simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. We consider a collaborative multi-authored paper to have three or more people from at least two different institutions. A multi-authored paper can be a result of a single discrete research project or the outcome of a larger research program that includes other papers based on common data or methods. The writing of a multi-authored paper is embedded within a broader context of planning and collaboration among team members. Our recommended rules include elements of both the planning and writing of a paper, and they can be iterative, although we have listed them in numerical order. It will help to revisit the rules frequently throughout the writing process. With the 10 rules outlined below, we aim to provide a foundation for writing multi-authored papers and conducting exciting and influential science.

Rule 1: Build your writing team wisely

The writing team is formed at the beginning of the writing process. This can happen at different stages of a research project. Your writing team should be built upon the expertise and interest of your coauthors. A good way to start is to review the initial goal of the research project and to gather everyone’s expectations for the paper, allowing all team members to decide whether they want to be involved in the writing. This step is normally initiated by the research project leader(s). When appointing the writing team, ensure that the team has the collective expertise required to write the paper and stay open to bringing in new people if required. If you need to add a coauthor at a later stage, discuss this first with the team ( Rule 8 ) and be clear as to how the person can contribute to the paper and qualify as a coauthor (Rules 4 and 10 ). When in doubt about selecting coauthors, in general we suggest to opt for being inclusive. A shared list with contact information and the contribution of all active coauthors is useful for keeping track of who is involved throughout the writing process.

In order to share the workload and increase the involvement of all coauthors during the writing process, you can distribute specific roles within the team (e.g., a team leader and a facilitator [see Rule 2 ] and a note taker [see Rule 8 ]).

Rule 2: If you take the lead, provide leadership

Leadership is critical for a multi-authored paper to be written in a timely and satisfactory manner. This is especially true for large, joint projects. The leader of the writing process and first author typically are the same person, but they don’t have to be. The leader is the contact person for the group, keeps the writing moving forward, and generally should manage the writing process through to publication. It is key that the leader provides strong communication and feedback and acknowledges contributions from the group. The leader should incorporate flexibility with respect to timelines and group decisions. For different leadership styles, refer to [ 7 , 8 ].

When developing collaborative multi-authored papers, the leader should allow time for all voices to be heard. In general, we recommend leading multi-authored papers through consensus building and not hierarchically because the manuscript should represent the views of all authors ( Rule 9 ). At the same time, the leader needs to be able to make difficult decisions about manuscript structure, content, and author contributions by maintaining oversight of the project as a whole.

Finally, a good leader must know when to delegate tasks and share the workload, e.g., by delegating facilitators for a meeting or assigning responsibilities and subleaders for sections of a manuscript. At times, this may include recognizing that something has changed, e.g., a change in work commitments by a coauthor or a shift in the paper’s focus. In such a case, it may be timely for someone else to step in as leader and possibly also as first author, while the previous leader’s work is acknowledged in the manuscript or as a coauthor ( Rule 4 ).

Rule 3: Create a data management plan

If not already implemented at the start of the research project, we recommend that you implement a data management plan (DMP) that is circulated at an early stage of the writing process and agreed upon by all coauthors (see also [ 9 ] and https://dmptool.org/ ; https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/ ). The DMP should outline how project data will be shared, versioned, stored, and curated and also details of who within the team will have access to the (raw) data during and post publication.

Multi-authored papers often use and/or produce large datasets originating from a variety of sources or data contributors. Each of these sources may have different demands about how data and code are used and shared during analysis and writing and after publication. Previous articles published in the “Ten simple rules” series provide guidance on the ethics of big-data research [ 10 ], how to enable multi-site collaborations through open data sharing [ 3 ], how to store data [ 11 ], and how to curate data [ 12 ]. As many journals now require datasets to be shared through an open access platform as a prerequisite to paper publication, the DMP should include detail on how this will be achieved and what data (including metadata) will be included in the final dataset.

Your DMP should not be a complicated, detailed document and can often be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Once your DMP is finalized, all data providers and coauthors should confirm that they agree with the plan and that their institutional and/or funding agency obligations are met. It is our experience within GLEON that these obligations vary widely across the research community, particularly at an intercontinental scale.

Rule 4: Jointly decide on authorship guidelines

Defining authorship and author order are longstanding issues in science [ 13 ]. In order to avoid conflict, you should be clear early on in the research project what level of participation is required for authorship. You can do this by creating a set of guidelines to define the contributions and tasks worthy of authorship. For an authorship policy template, see [ 14 ] and check your institute’s and the journal’s authorship guidelines. For example, generating ideas, funding acquisition, data collection or provision, analyses, drafting figures and tables, and writing sections of text are discrete tasks that can constitute contributions for authorship (see, e.g., the CRediT system: http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT [ 15 ]). All authors are expected to participate in multiple tasks, in addition to editing and approving the final document. It is debated whether merely providing data does qualify for coauthorship. If data provision is not felt to be grounds for coauthorship, you should acknowledge the data provider in the Acknowledgments [ 16 ].

Your authorship guidelines can also increase transparency and help to clarify author order. If coauthors have contributed to the paper at different levels, task-tracking and indicating author activity on various tasks can help establish author order, with the person who contributed most in the front. Other options include groupings based on level of activity [ 17 ] or having the core group in the front and all other authors listed alphabetically. If every coauthor contributed equally, you can use alphabetical order [ 18 ] or randomly assigned order [ 19 ]. Joint first authorship should be considered when appropriate. We encourage you to make a statement about author order (e.g., [ 19 ]) and to generate authorship attribution statements; many journals will include these as part of the Acknowledgments if a separate statement is not formally required. For those who do not meet expectations for authorship, an alternative to authorship is to list contributors in the Acknowledgments [ 15 ]. Be aware of coauthors’ expectations and disciplinary, cultural, and other norms in what constitutes author order. For example, in some disciplines, the last author is used to indicate the academic advisor or team leader. We recommend revisiting definitions of authorship and author order frequently because roles and responsibilities may change during the writing process.

Rule 5: Decide on a writing strategy

The writing strategy should be adapted according to the needs of the team (white shapes in Fig 1 ) and based on the framework given through external factors (gray shapes in Fig 1 ). For example, a research paper that uses wide-ranging data might have several coauthors but one principal writer (e.g., a PhD candidate) who was conducting the analysis, whereas a comment or review in a specific research field might be written jointly by all coauthors based on parallel discussion. In most cases, the approach that everyone writes on everything is not possible and is very inefficient. Most commonly, the paper is split into sub-sections based on what aspects of the research the coauthors have been responsible for or based on expertise and interest of the coauthors. Regardless of which writing strategy you choose, the importance of engaging all team members in defining the narrative, format, and structure of the paper cannot be overstated; this will preempt having to rewrite or delete sections later.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Different writing strategies ranging from very inclusive to minimally inclusive: group writing = everyone writes on everything; subgroup writing = document is split up into expertise areas, each individual contributes to a subsection; core writing group = a subgroup of a few coauthors writes the paper; scribe writing = one person writes based on previous group discussions; principal writer = one person drafts and writes the paper (writing styles adapted from [ 20 ]). Which writing strategy you choose depends on external factors (filled, gray shapes), such as the interdisciplinarity of the study or the time pressure of the paper to be published, and affects the payback (dashed, white shapes). An increasing height of the shape indicates an increasing quantity of the decision criteria, such as the interdisciplinarity, diversity, feasibility, etc.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508.g001

For an efficient writing process, try to use the active voice in suggestions and make direct edits rather than simply stating that a section needs revision. For all writing strategies, the lead author(s) has to ensure that the completed text is cohesive.

Rule 6: Choose digital tools to suit your needs

A suitable technology for writing your multi-authored paper depends upon your chosen writing approach ( Rule 5 ). For projects in which the whole group writes together, synchronous technologies such as Google Docs or Overleaf work well by allowing for interactive writing that facilitates version control (see also [ 21 ]). In contrast, papers written sequentially, in parallel by subsections, or by only one author may allow for using conventional programs such as Microsoft Word or LibreOffice. In any case, you should create a plan early on for version control, comments, and tracking changes. Regularly mark the version of the document, e.g., by including the current date in the file name. When working offline and distributing the document, add initials in the file name to indicate the progress and most recent editor.

High-quality communication is important for efficient discussion on the paper’s content. When picking a virtual meeting technology, consider the number of participants permitted in a single group call, ability to record the meeting, audio and visual quality, and the need for additional features such as screencasting or real-time notes. Especially for large groups, it can be helpful for people who are not currently speaking to mute their microphones (blocking background noise), to use the video for nonverbal communication (e.g., to show approval or rejection and to help nonnative speakers), or to switch off the video when internet speeds are slow. More guidelines for effective virtual meetings are available in Hampton and colleagues [ 22 ].

In between virtual meetings, virtual technologies can help to streamline communication (e.g., https://slack.com ) and can facilitate the writing process through shared to-do lists and task boards including calendar features (e.g., http://trello.com ).

With all technologies, accessibility, ease of use, and cost are important decision criteria. Note that some coauthors will be very comfortable with new technologies, whereas others may not be. Both should be ready to compromise in order to be as efficient and inclusive as possible. Basic training in unfamiliar technologies will likely pay off in the long term.

Rule 7: Set clear timelines and adhere to them

As for the overall research project, setting realistic and effective deadlines maintains the group’s momentum and facilitates on-schedule paper completion [ 23 ]. Before deciding to become a coauthor, consider your own time commitments. As a coauthor, commit to set deadlines, recognize the importance of meeting them, and notify the group early on if you realize that you will not be able to meet a deadline or attend a meeting. Building consensus around deadlines will ensure that internally imposed deadlines are reasonably timed [ 23 ] and will increase the likelihood that they are met. Keeping to deadlines and staying on task require developing a positive culture of encouragement within the team [ 14 ]. You should respect people’s time by being punctual for meetings, sending out drafts and the meeting agenda on schedule, and ending meetings on time.

To develop a timeline, we recommend starting by defining the “final” deadline. Occasionally, this date will be set “externally” (e.g., by an editorial request), but in most cases, you can set an internal consensus deadline. Thereafter, define intermediate milestones with clearly defined tasks and the time required to fulfill them. Look for and prioritize strategies that allow multiple tasks to be completed simultaneously because this allows for a more efficient timeline. Keep in mind that “however long you give yourself to complete a task is how long it will take” [ 24 ] and that group scheduling will vary depending on the selected writing strategy ( Rule 5 ). Generally, collaborative manuscripts need more draft and revision rounds than a “solo” article.

Rule 8: Be transparent throughout the process

This rule is important for the overall research project but becomes especially important when it comes to publishing and coauthorship. Being as open as possible about deadlines ( Rule 7 ) and expectations (including authorship, Rule 4 ) helps to avoid misunderstandings and conflict. Be clear about the consequences if someone does not follow the group’s rules but also be open to rediscuss rules if needed. Potential consequences of not following the group’s rules include a change in author order or removing authorship. It should also be clear that a coauthor’s edits might not be included in the final text if s/he does not contribute on time. Bad experience from past collaboration can lead to exclusion from further research projects.

As for collaboration [ 2 ], communication is key. During meetings, decide on a note taker who keeps track of the group’s discussions and decisions in meeting notes. This will help coauthors who could not attend the meeting as well as help the whole group follow up on decisions later on. Encourage everyone to provide feedback and be sincere and clear if something is not working—writing a multi-authored paper is a learning process. If you feel someone is frustrated, try to address the issue promptly within the group rather than waiting and letting the problem escalate. When resolving a conflict, it is important to actively listen and focus the conversation on how to reach a solution that benefits the group as a whole [ 25 ]. Democratic decisions can often help to resolve differing opinions.

Rule 9: Cultivate equity, diversity, and inclusion

Multi-authored papers will likely have a team of coauthors with diverse demographics and cultural values, which usually broadens the scope of knowledge, experience, and background. While the benefit of a diverse team is clear [ 14 ], successfully integrating diversity in a collaborative team effort requires increased awareness of differences and proactive conflict management [ 25 ]. You can cultivate diversity by holding members accountable to equity, diversity, and inclusivity guidelines (e.g., https://www.ryerson.ca/edistem/ ).

If working across cultures, you will need to select the working language (both for verbal and written communications); this is most commonly the publication language. When team members are not native speakers in the working language, you should always speak slowly, enunciate clearly, and avoid local expressions and acronyms, as well as listen closely and ask questions if you do not understand. Besides language, be empathetic when listening to others’ opinions in order to genuinely understand your coauthors’ points of view [ 26 ].

When giving verbal or written feedback, be constructive but also be aware of how different cultures receive and react to feedback [ 27 ]. Inclusive writing and speaking provide engagement, e.g., “ we could do that,” and acknowledge input between peers. In addition, you can create opportunities for expression of different personalities and opinions by adopting a participatory group model (e.g., [ 28 ]).

Rule 10: Consider the ethical implications of your coauthorship

Being a coauthor is both a benefit and a responsibility: having your name on a publication implies that you have contributed substantially, that you are familiar with the content of the paper, and that you have checked the accuracy of the content as best you can. To conduct a self-assessment as to whether your contributions merit coauthorship, start by revisiting authorship guidelines for your group ( Rule 4 ).

Be sure to verify the scientific accuracy of your contributions; e.g., if you contributed data, it is your responsibility that the data are correct, or if you performed laboratory or data analyses, it is your responsibility that the analyses are correct. If an author is accused of scientific misconduct, there are likely to be consequences for all the coauthors. Although there are currently no clear rules for coauthor responsibility [ 29 ], be aware of your responsibility and find a balance between trust and control.

One of the final steps before submission of a multi-authored paper is for all coauthors to confirm that they have contributed to the paper, agree upon the final text, and support its submission. This final confirmation, initiated by the lead author, will ensure that all coauthors have considered their role in the work and can affirm contributions. It is important that you repeat the confirmation step each time the paper is revised and resubmitted. Set deadlines for the confirmation steps and make clear that coauthorship cannot be guaranteed if confirmations are not done.

When writing collaborative multi-authored papers, communication is more complex, and consensus can be more difficult to achieve. Our experience shows that structured approaches can help to promote optimal solutions and resolve problems around authorship as well as data ownership and curation. Clear structures are vital to establish a safe and positive environment that generates trust and confidence among the coauthors [ 14 ]. The latter is especially challenging when collaborating over large distances and not meeting face-to-face.

Since there is no single “right approach,” our rules can serve as a starting point that can be modified specifically to your own team and project needs. You should revisit these rules frequently and progressively adapt what works best for your team and the project.

We believe that the benefits of working in diverse groups outweigh the transaction costs of coordinating many people, resulting in greater diversity of approaches, novel scientific outputs, and ultimately better papers. If you bring curiosity, patience, and openness to team science projects and act with consideration and empathy, especially when writing, the experience will be fun, productive, and rewarding.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Meredith Holgerson and Samantha Oliver for their input in the very beginning of this project. We thank the Global Lake Observatory Network (GLEON), which has provided a trustworthy and collaborative work environment.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 7. Bass BM, Avolio BJ. Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications; 1994.
• 8. Braun S, Peus C, Frey D, Knipfer K. Leadership in Academia: Individual and Collective Approaches to the Quest for Creativity and Innovation. In: Peus C, Braun S, Schyns B, editors. Leadership Lessons from Compelling Contexts: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2016. pp. 349–365.
• 24. Northcote Parkinson C. Parkinson’s Law: Or the Pursuit of Progress. 1st ed. London: John Murray; 1958.
• 25. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Collaboration & Team Science: A Field Guide. National Institutes of Health. August 2010. https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/display/NIHOMBUD/Home . [cited 19 February 2018].
• 26. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. London: Simon & Schuster; 2004.
• 27. Meyer E. The Culture Map (INTL ED): Decoding How People Think, Lead, and Get Things Done Across Cultures. 1st ed. New York: PublicAffairs; 2016.
• 28. Kaner S. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2014.

News: Teamscope has become Studypages Data! 🎉

News: Teamscope joins StudyPages 🎉

Data collection in the fight against COVID-19

Data Collection

Research authorship: the complete guide for young researchers.

Last year, Dr. Rachel Maseke recruited me to help with data collection in her research. It was my first experience with clinical research, so I was excited. I was even more excited after being promised co-authorship of the particular paper; it could have been my first authorship of a research paper!

Dear Diary, I have been struggling with an eating disorder for the past few years. I am afraid to eat and afraid I will gain weight. The fear is unjustified as I was never overweight. I have weighed the same since I was 12 years old, and I am currently nearing my 25th birthday. Yet, when I see my reflection, I see somebody who is much larger than reality. ‍ I told my therapist that I thought I was fat. She said it was 'body dysmorphia'. She explained this as a mental health condition where a person is apprehensive about their appearance and suggested I visit a nutritionist. She also told me that this condition was associated with other anxiety disorders and eating disorders. I did not understand what she was saying as I was in denial; I had a problem, to begin with. I wanted a solution without having to address my issues. Upon visiting my nutritionist, he conducted an in-body scan and told me my body weight was dangerously low. I disagreed with him. ‍ I felt he was speaking about a different person than the person I saw in the mirror. I felt like the elephant in the room- both literally and figuratively. He then made the simple but revolutionary suggestion to keep a food diary to track what I was eating. This was a clever way for my nutritionist and me to be on the same page. By recording all my meals, drinks, and snacks, I was able to see what I was eating versus what I was supposed to be eating. Keeping a meal diary was a powerful and non-invasive way for my nutritionist to walk in my shoes for a specific time and understand my eating (and thinking) habits. No other methodology would have allowed my nutritionist to capture so much contextual and behavioural information on my eating patterns other than a daily detailed food diary. However, by using a paper and pen, I often forgot (or intentionally did not enter my food entries) as I felt guilty reading what I had eaten or that I had eaten at all. I also did not have the visual flexibility to express myself through using photos, videos, voice recordings, and screen recordings. The usage of multiple media sources would have allowed my nutritionist to observe my behaviour in real-time and gain a holistic view of my physical and emotional needs. I confessed to my therapist my deliberate dishonesty in completing the physical food diary and why I had been reluctant to participate in the exercise. My therapist then suggested to my nutritionist and me to transition to a mobile diary study. Whilst I used a physical diary (paper and pen), a mobile diary study app would have helped my nutritionist and me reach a common ground (and to be on the same page) sooner rather than later. As a millennial, I wanted to feel like journaling was as easy as Tweeting or posting a picture on Instagram. But at the same time, I wanted to know that the information I  provided in a digital diary would be as safe and private as it would have been as my handwritten diary locked in my bedroom cabinet. Further, a digital food diary study platform with push notifications would have served as a constant reminder to log in my food entries as I constantly check my phone. It would have also made the task of writing a food diary less momentous by transforming my journaling into micro-journaling by allowing me to enter one bite at a time rather than the whole day's worth of meals at once. Mainly, the digital food diary could help collect the evidence that I was not the elephant in the room, but rather that the elephant in the room was my denied eating disorder. Sincerely, The elephant in the room

 In July 2021, our research study finally came to an end. Sadly, She didn't include me in the authorship because my contribution to the paper wasn't enough. I was very heartbroken. However, I was reminded not to give up on what matters. You might also come across a similar situation when your will is put to the test. It is important always to remember that persistence is the name of the game.

A famous quote by a French mathematician and politician, François Jean Arago says, "To get to know, to discover, to publish—this is the destiny of a scientist." Research publication and dissemination form the ultimate feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment for every scientist. You can't forget the time you were the author of a research publication. In addition to the feeling of happiness, you feel more confident and appreciated that your hard work, sacrifice, sweat and tears have finally paid off. I didn't believe that they wouldn't include me in the authorship of Dr. Maseke's paper. 

Authorship is one of the most disputable topics in the scientific community, usually raising conflicts, especially among junior researchers.

It would help if you also looked on the bright side of any obstacle on your way. At first, I was disappointed with Dr. Maseke. But later, I realized that she wasn't really at fault. Although my first authorship dream didn't come into reality, I finally understood the guidelines for research authorship. There are standards to be met to qualify for authorship.

What are the different levels of authorship?

According to Harvard Medical School, authorship gives credit and assign responsibility for a published intellectual work. An author is a person who has made a significant contribution to a scientific report. (1) They must agree to have their name printed in the byline of the published report.

As we know, science fosters collaborations, so some scientific articles have more than one author. I was recently a co-author of a published article under Dr. Olivier Uwishema. Our paper had eight authors from different countries such as Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria and Turkey. Generally, we can categorize Authors into the following:

Lead Author

The lead author is sometimes called the first or main author of the published article. These are authors who have made the most contributions and performed the central experiments in the project. They have the role of preparing the first draft of the manuscript. In most cases, if you want to be the lead author, you must be willing to sacrifice the majority of your time and energy to research. In addition, they should ensure that other authors meet the requirements for authorship. In our paper, Dr. Olivier Uwishema was the lead author. He made sure each author had submitted their expected contribution in time. In addition, he instructed us to submit our affiliations; he sent them to the journal of medical virology.

Corresponding Author

The lead author, in most cases, serves as the corresponding author. He is responsible for responding to editorial queries on time. After publication, the corresponding author should respond to critiques of the work. Some journals, for example, Gigascience, allow two corresponding authors. An author's availability throughout the submission and peer review process is essential to avoid publication delays. However, if the author is too busy for the role, he should propose another person (co-author). You are encouraged to resign from the role whenever you are overwhelmed by other duties.

Co-Author(s)

These are other people who have qualified for authorship. They should contribute substantially and review and approve the manuscript. In our paper, Dr Olivier Uwishema distributed tasks to us and always insisted on punctuality in submitting our expected contributions. 

Group Authorship

Some projects with many authors, such as multi-centre trials, prefer using a group name. The corresponding author has the task of specifying the group name during the submission of the manuscript. Typically, the byline will include a group name, whereas Medline will consist of a list of authors. For example, multi-institutional project consortiums often use group authorship.

6 responsibilities and duties of a research author

We all want to publish articles. But when you want to publish in high-impact journals, you have to be prepared to take on the standard scientific responsibilities. According to the Council of Science Editors Organization, research authors should adhere to the following responsibilities.

1. Journal and author confidentiality

The author-editor should maintain confidentiality in their relationship. Moreover, Authors should ensure confidentiality in all communication between themselves and the journal. For example, even after I received emails of acceptance of our manuscript. I tried to maintain confidentiality until the paper I co-authored was published in August 2021.

2. The originality of the research output

Editors often give low priority to studies that don't advance scientific knowledge. Moreover, Authors are usually required to provide a statement showing evidence of the originality of the study.

3. Disclosures to journals

Authors should be open when complying with journal submission requirements—for example, an author's financial and conflict of interest disclosures. You must report all sources of funding and any products or services provided by third parties in the research. In our paper, we reported no conflict of interest. 

4. Copyright Assignments

These agreements allow authors to retain certain rights to the material. Authors should assign copyright to the journals publishing their work, especially in medical publishing. In addition, journals encourage authors to double-check and ensure the article doesn't contain any plagiarized content. You can use Grammarly to double-check for plagiarism in your paper.

5. Permissions from journals

Some authors wish to reuse previously published content, such as previously published images. Journals usually have guidelines for reusing any copyrighted material, so authors should seek "permission" from them. For example, we managed to get permission to reuse a chart in our article. 

6. Multiple Submissions of articles

In the biomedical sciences, authors are usually not allowed to submit their manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously. Moreover, the violation of this policy can lead to the rejection of the paper. 

In addition, authors should wait until the original journal formally rejects the submitted manuscript undergoing peer review. For example, I remember how Dr Olivier Uwishema insisted on a single submission of our paper. He emphasized submission to the journal of medical virology only. 

Practices that violate authorship standards

There are no universally accepted standards for awarding authorship across cultures and scientific disciplines. However, basic authorship principles are almost similar in different institutions, including medical schools and journals. Sadly, various research motives can sometimes encourage practices that violate these standards. According to the Elsevier fact-sheet, the following types of authorship are considered unacceptable:

Ghost Authorship

It involves professional writers usually paid by commercial sponsors, thus contributing substantially to a paper but not getting acknowledged. For example, it occurs when a clinician (author) conducts research; they collect data but don't write the article themselves. You are required to acknowledge everyone who assisted in the research output. (2)

Guest Authorship

These authors haven't made any significant contribution to the paper. They are usually listed to increase the chances of publication. For example, if you include a very senior person in authorship just because you believe they will improve the odds of publication.

Gift or Honorary authorship

It involves authorship based solely on insubstantial affiliation with the study. For example, lead authors usually face conflicting pressure to include their supervisor in publication even though they haven't made any direct, meaningful contribution. 

Moreover, you shouldn't extend authorship to someone just because he is a senior or mentor. I believe that the standard for authorship should be adhered to by all researchers. Another example is when you get authorship because you are the head of the department where the study takes place. 

Authorship for Sale

There are cases when a non-author attempts to buy authorship in an article. It occurs especially after the paper has been invited for review or provisionally accepted. There have been numerous reports in China (3), where people sometimes buy authorship for as little as $1600. I believe this is a violation of our values as scientists.

Anonymous Authorship

Authorship should be transparent, and the authors should take public accountability for the published work. In very rare cases when attaching one's name can threaten their safety or loss of employment, a journal editor can publish anonymously. 

How do you qualify for research authorship?

In September 2021, I had a brief dialogue with my mentor, Dr Kristin Schroeder. She said, "Each author is expected to have made a significant contribution in the conception, design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of data in the research project." According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), you should fulfil the following four criteria to qualify for authorship:

• You should make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the project, the development, analysis and interpretation of data for the work.
• You should contribute to the writing of the work or critically revise it to ensure that it contains essential intellectual content.
• You should be involved in the final approval of the manuscript.
• You should be accountable for the research output and be ready to defend the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Contributors who adhere to fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not qualify to be authors. (3) They should be part of the 'Acknowledgements'. For example, In Dr Rachel's study, I was part of the acknowledgements for my valuable contribution to data collection. 

Some journals, such as the BMJ, encourage a contributor-ship policy. It ensures that individuals qualify for authorship. They usually request and publish information about the contributions of each person who participated in the original research. These policies help to remove much of the ambiguity surrounding contributions. But it leaves unresolved the question of the quantity and quality of contributions that qualify an individual for authorship. As a corresponding author, you should regularly communicate with your co-authors, which helps to minimize the risks of conflicts in the future.

Common disputes between authors 

Without a doubt, the failure to determine whether a researcher has qualified for authorship is a potential cause for conflicts among researchers. Another cause of conflicts in the scientific community, especially among junior researchers, is the order of authorship. In most disciplines, the order of authorship indicates the degree of contributorship in a paper. Examples of authorship policies include descending order of contribution, placing the highest-valued author first and the most senior author last. The ICMJE recommends that researchers should decide the best order of authorship during the initiation of the study. In Dr. Olivier Uwishema's paper, he communicated with us about the order of authorship. 

Authorship disputes are rife. Results from an online survey organized by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences among 6700 international researchers showed that 46.6% had experienced disagreements about author naming and that 37.9% had had disputes about name order on author lists.  

Reports from the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) showed, there are two types of classifications on conflicts about authorship : 

These mainly include disagreements that do not breach ICMJE guidelines. Examples of questions of interpretation, such as whether someone's contribution was "substantial" or not. 

As the victim author, you should clarify and show that you have contributed enough to the project. You have to negotiate with your fellow co-authors to reach a consensus. For example, if a supervisor instructs you to add or omit an author's name, you should first politely show them documentary proof such as guidelines to authors. If the supervisor is still not convinced, you can follow a senior such as the department head or dean.

These are disagreements that breach ICMJE guidelines, such as the use of authorship lists that are unethical. An honest author usually faces conflicting pressures about whether to say nothing (and therefore be complicit in unethical behaviour) or blow the whistle, even though this might damage their career prospects or future funding.

You should explain that the suggested author list contravenes editors' recommendations and could be considered scientific misconduct. We shouldn't keep silent and encourage the violation of authorship principles. Moreover, we should warn the unethical authors since it can also harm their careers or create possible funding problems in the future.

Disagreements over authorship have a damaging effect on the effectiveness and reputation of individuals and their academic institutions. Many of these disagreements usually arise from misunderstandings and failed communication between researchers. 

How to prevent conflicts between authors 

As a corresponding author, you have the task of ensuring smooth communication between co-authors. In addition, he also should address any authorship conflicts that might arise during research. We can reduce the incidence of authorship problems in the following ways:

1. Encourage a culture of ethical authorship

Ignorance of the ethics of authorship is a problem for many researchers who still rely on local customs and practices. We need to be aware of the changes around the ethics of authorship and the guidelines of journals. Departmental libraries should have at least one book on publication ethics. A great starting point is the book "Sharing publication-related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences".

2. Start discussing authorship when you plan your research.

From the beginning of a research project, the whole research team should have authorship discussions, especially face-to-face meetings. As a corresponding author, you should ensure all investigators have an idea of their expected individual contributions to the research output. Proper documentation of the authorship agreements during the evolution of the project is essential. The authorship agreement should include:

• Identify the authors of the research publication. It would be best if you didn't wait until the end of the research to start identifying authors.
• Corresponding authors should describe each author's contributions in the research publication. In addition, he should be transparent in everything that concerns authors and journals.
• A preferred order of authorship that all authors approve of the research project. 
• Identifying at least one corresponding author to facilitate communication between authors and the journal. ‍

3. Immediate communication in the event of a change in authorship or contribution.

All authors should participate and approve any changes in authorship after the initial submission—for example, the deletion, addition, or reordering of authors. Moreover, editors should also be aware of any alterations. They can sometimes contact any authors to ascertain whether all authors agreed to the changes in authorship.

4. Speak with a trusted mentor or supervisor.

A famous quote from a renowned radio and television writer, Andy Rooney, says, "The best classroom in the world is at the feet of an elderly or senior person." Our mentors have often come across the same challenges we are experiencing, so it's wise to learn from them. We should be cautious and aware that there may be ill-intentioned seniors who are unethical in their profession. It is better to only choose people who you trust. They should be honest and ethical. 

The Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) encourages authors to work on their differences on their own. They remind us that you should not rely on journal editors to solve your article's authorship disputes. However, problems such as power differentials tend to hinder the resolving of most conflicts internally. I have heard of cases when senior faculty/authors act as bullies, thus dictating authorship discussions. 

It is without a doubt that discussing authorship is very crucial before beginning any research project. In theory, research authorship sounds straightforward, but in practice, it often causes misunderstandings. This is hardly surprising given the massive pressure on individuals and institutions to "publish or perish." 

We all dream to be authors in many publications. Consequently, we are tempted to violate the standards for authorship. Nevertheless, we should maintain our ethical values and diminish authorship conflicts.

I'm glad I learned about research authorship after only being acknowledged in Dr. Rachel Maseke's study. Even if it didn't change the author list as I would have liked, it led to changes in my research perspective. It would be best if you didn't give up even when setbacks arise in your paths to success.

1. Harvard Medical School. Authorship Guidelines. 1996.

2. (ICMJE) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE of JOURNAL EDITORS. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.2021 

3. Academy Enago. Scientific Misconduct: Authorships for Sale. 2020.

If appropriately used in the 21st century, data could save us from lots of failed interventions and enable us to provide evidence-based solutions towards tackling malaria globally. This is also part of what makes the ALMA scorecard generated by the African Leaders Malaria Alliance an essential tool for tracking malaria intervention globally. ‍ If we are able to know the financial resources deployed to fight malaria in an endemic country and equate it to the coverage and impact, it would be easier to strengthen accountability for malaria control and also track progress in malaria elimination across the continent of Africa and beyond.

Odinaka Kingsley Obeta

West African Lead, ALMA Youth Advisory Council/Zero Malaria Champion

There is a smarter way to do research.

Build fully customizable data capture forms, collect data wherever you are and analyze it with a few clicks — without any training required.

Build a medical form in minutes.

Easily build a medical form, collect data securely from your smartphone or browser and analyse it with a few clicks.

Dear Digital Diary, ‍ I realized that there is an unquestionable comfort in being misunderstood. For to be understood, one must peel off all the emotional layers and be exposed. This requires both vulnerability and strength. I guess by using a physical diary (a paper and a pen), I never felt like what I was saying was analyzed or judged. But I also never thought I was understood. ‍ Paper does not talk back.Using a daily digital diary has required emotional strength. It has required the need to trust and the need to provide information to be helped and understood. Using a daily diary has needed less time and effort than a physical diary as I am prompted to interact through mobile notifications. I also no longer relay information from memory, but rather the medical or personal insights I enter are real-time behaviours and experiences. ‍ The interaction is more organic. I also must confess this technology has allowed me to see patterns in my behaviour that I would have otherwise never noticed. I trust that the data I enter is safe as it is password protected. I also trust that I am safe because my doctor and nutritionist can view my records in real-time. ‍ Also, with the data entered being more objective and diverse through pictures and voice recordings, my treatment plan has been better suited to my needs. Sincerely, No more elephants in this room

Goodluck Nchasi

I am a 3rd-year medical student at Catholic University Of Health And Allied Sciences, faculty of Medicine, located in Mwanza, Tanzania. I am also a member of the Tanzania Medical Students Association (TAMSA), as a student research mentor. I love sharing my ideas through writing health and research articles. I also have great enthusiasm towards medical research since it shows our faults and how to improve so as to ensure better global healthcare.

More articles on

Digital health and human rights: the 3 challenges we face.

Home-Based Care: The Top 3 Challenges and Solutions

Research Ethical Clearance: Quick Guide for Young Researchers

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

What is a Corresponding Author?

• 3 minute read
• 444.6K 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.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Order Authors in Scientific Papers

It’s rare that an article is authored by only one or two people anymore. In fact, the average original research paper has five authors these days. The growing list of collaborative research projects raises important questions regarding the author order for research manuscripts and the impact an author list has on readers’ perceptions.

With a handful of authors, a group might be inclined to create an author name list based on the amount of work contributed. What happens, though, when you have a long list of authors? It would be impractical to rank the authors by their relative contributions. Additionally, what if the authors contribute relatively equal amounts of work? Similarly, if a study was interdisciplinary (and many are these days), how can one individual’s contribution be deemed more significant than another’s?

Why does author order matter?

Although an author list should only reflect those who have made substantial contributions to a research project and its draft manuscript (see, for example, the authorship guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ), we’d be remiss to say that author order doesn’t matter. In theory, everyone on the list should be credited equally since it takes a team to successfully complete a project; however, due to industry customs and other practical limitations, some authors will always be more visible than others.

The following are some notable implications regarding author order.

• The “first author” is a coveted position because of its increased visibility. This author is the first name readers will see, and because of various citation rules, publications are usually referred to by the name of the first author only. In-text or bibliographic referencing rules, for example, often reduce all other named authors to “et al.” Since employers use first-authorship to evaluate academic personnel for employment, promotion, and tenure, and since graduate students often need a number of first-author publications to earn their degree, being the lead author on a manuscript is crucial for many researchers, especially early in their career.
• The last author position is traditionally reserved for the supervisor or principal investigator. As such, this person receives much of the credit when the research goes well and the flak when things go wrong. The last author may also be the corresponding author, the person who is the primary contact for journal editors (the first author could, however, fill this role as well, especially if they contributed most to the work).
• Given that there is no uniform rule about author order, readers may find it difficult to assess the nature of an author’s contribution to a research project. To address this issue, some journals, particularly medical ones, nowadays insist on detailed author contribution notes (make sure you check the target journal guidelines before submission to find out how the journal you are planning to submit to handles this). Nevertheless, even this does little to counter how strongly citation rules have enhanced the attention first-named authors receive.

Common Methods for Listing Authors

The following are some common methods for establishing author order lists.

• Relative contribution. As mentioned above, the most common way authors are listed is by relative contribution. The author who made the most substantial contribution to the work described in an article and did most of the underlying research should be listed as the first author. The others are ranked in descending order of contribution. However, in many disciplines, such as the life sciences, the last author in a group is the principal investigator or “senior author”—the person who often provides ideas based on their earlier research and supervised the current work.
• Alphabetical list . Certain fields, particularly those involving large group projects, employ other methods . For example, high-energy particle physics teams list authors alphabetically.
• Multiple “first” authors . Additional “first” authors (so-called “co-first authors”) can be noted by an asterisk or other symbols accompanied by an explanatory note. This practice is common in interdisciplinary studies; however, as we explained above, the first name listed on a paper will still enjoy more visibility than any other “first” author.
• Multiple “last” authors . Similar to recognizing several first authors, multiple last authors can be recognized via typographical symbols and footnotes. This practice arose as some journals wanted to increase accountability by requiring senior lab members to review all data and interpretations produced in their labs instead of being awarded automatic last-authorship on every publication by someone in their group.
• Negotiated order . If you were thinking you could avoid politics by drowning yourself in research, you’re sorely mistaken. While there are relatively clear guidelines and practices for designating first and last authors, there’s no overriding convention for the middle authors. The list can be decided by negotiation, so sharpen those persuasive argument skills!

As you can see, choosing the right author order can be quite complicated. Therefore, we urge researchers to consider these factors early in the research process and to confirm this order during the English proofreading process, whether you self-edit or received manuscript editing or paper editing services , all of which should be done before submission to a journal. Don’t wait until the manuscript is drafted before you decide on the author order in your paper. All the parties involved will need to agree on the author list before submission, and no one will want to delay submission because of a disagreement about who should be included on the author list, and in what order (along with other journal manuscript authorship issues).

On top of that, journals sometimes have clear rules about changing authors or even authorship order during the review process, might not encourage it, and might require detailed statements explaining the specific contribution of every new/old author, official statements of agreement of all authors, and/or a corrigendum to be submitted, all of which can further delay the publication process. We recommend periodically revisiting the named author issue during the drafting stage to make sure that everyone is on the same page and that the list is updated to appropriately reflect changes in team composition or contributions to a research project.

Collaborative Writing: Roles, Authorship & Ethics

• First Online: 27 April 2021

Cite this chapter

• Lorelei Lingard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-3355 10 &
• Christopher Watling   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9686-795X 10  

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 19))

2726 Accesses

When tempers flare on a writing team, it often signals disputes regarding team members’ roles, their candidacy for authorship, and their placement in the author order. Talking about these issues can be difficult, but not talking about them early and often can be detrimental to the team’s relationships and their productivity. In this second chapter on Collaborative Writing, we provide strategies for addressing roles, authorship and ethics when you are writing in a group. Illustrative vignettes highlight recurring challenges in collaborative writing and offer solutions grounded in experience and evidence.

Perhaps the only thing sadder than failed love is a betrayed scientific collaboration. –Dr. Doc

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Babor, T., Morisano, D., & Noel, J. (2017). Coin of the realm: Practical procedures for determining authorship. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, R. Pates, M. Miovský, J. O’Reilly, & P. Candon (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (pp. 207–227). London: Ubiquity Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28 (2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Dance, A. (2012). Authorship: Who’s on first? Nature, 489 , 591–593. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a .

Frassl, M. A., Hamilton, D. P., Denfeld, B. A., de Eyto, E., Hampton, S. E., Keller, P. S., et al. (2018). Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper. PLoS Computational Biology, 14 (11), e1006508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508 .

Gadlin, H., & Bennett, L. M. (2012). Dear doc: Advice for collaborators. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2 (4), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0156-1 .

Garfield, E. (1982, July 26). More on the ethics of scientific publication: Abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science. Essays of an information scientist (Vol. 5). http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v5p621y1981-82.pdf . Accessed 16 Sept 2020.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2018). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals . http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf . Accessed 14 Nov 2019.

Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561 , 167–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8 .

Kwok, L. S. (2005). The white bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31 , 554–556. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010553 .

Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46 (3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046 .

Maggio, L. A., Artino, A. R., Jr., Watling, C. J., Driessen, E. W., & O’Brien, B. C. (2019a). Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making. Medical Education, 53 , 1253–1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13950 .

Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A., Jr. (2019b). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8 , 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x .

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435 , 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a .

McFarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (7), 1194–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009 .

PLoS One. (n.d.). Authorship . https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship . Accessed 5 Feb 2020.

Smith, R. (1997). Authorship: Time for a paradigm shift? BMJ, 314 , 992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7086.992 .

Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul-Hus, A., et al. (2019). Researchers’ perceptions of ethical authorship distribution in collaborative research teams. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (4), 1995–2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3 .

Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 295 (3), C567–C575. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008 .

Uijtdehaage, S., Mavis, B., & Durning, S. J. (2018). Whose paper is it anyway? Authorship criteria according to established scholars in health professions education. Academic Medicine, 93 (8), 1171–1175. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002144 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, ON, Canada

Lorelei Lingard & Christopher Watling

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Lingard, L., Watling, C. (2021). Collaborative Writing: Roles, Authorship & Ethics. In: Story, Not Study: 30 Brief Lessons to Inspire Health Researchers as Writers. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_25

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71363-8_25

Published : 27 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-71362-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-71363-8

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”

With an increasing number of researchers and graduates chasing publication opportunities under the pressure of “ publish or perish ,” many are settling for participation in multiple author projects as the first step in building a track record of publications. Over time, the trend of multiple authorship has grown from 3–4 authors of a paper to 6 or more. As those numbers grow, the potential for confusion over responsibilities, accountabilities, and entitlements grows in parallel.

The term “multiple authorship” can be misleading, since the degree to which the workload is apportioned can depend on rank, experience, and expertise. Some participants will earn a place on the team solely on the basis of rank, with the hope that their presence will improve the team’s chances of getting accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. Others will be invited because they authored the original study design, provided the dataset for the study, or even provided the institutional research facilities.

Layers of Authorship

When there are only three or four members on a research paper team, the workload should be fairly easy to divide up, with a corresponding designation of one lead author and two or three co-authors . However, when the size of the team increases, a point is reached when co-authors become contributors. The perception of these titles can vary. New researchers who aspire to official authorship status may see the title of “contributor” as a relegation or demotion in rank, but for other, more experienced researchers, it may simply be a pragmatic recognition of the fact that you may have provided valuable resources but didn’t actually contribute to the writing or editing of the research paper.

Academic Misconduct

The danger in opening up another level of authorship is that journals are now given the opportunity to stuff papers with a few extra authors.

Related: Confused about assigning authorship to the right person? Check out this post on authorship now!

If the journal’s conduct has been flagged as being questionable to begin with—charging high article processing fees (APFs) for publication, delivering suspiciously short turnaround times for peer reviews—how far can they be from colluding with editors to add on a few contributors who had nothing to do with the research paper at all?

Contributorship Statements

As the development of larger research teams or collaborative authorship teams continues, the opportunities for new researchers to get published will hopefully increase too. However, the opportunity should never be looked upon as just getting your name added to the list of collaborators because being on that list comes with responsibilities. For example, if the peer review process flags problems with the data, who will be tasked with responding to that? If the reviewers request a partial re-write and re-submission , who will be tasked with delivering on those requests?

The larger the team, the greater the need for a detailed written agreement that allocates clear responsibilities both pre- and post-submission. This would fulfill two important tasks. First, everyone would know what is expected of them and what the consequences would be for not delivering on those expectations. Second, when the paper is accepted for publication, the agreement could be summarized as a contributorship statement , so that readers are given a clear picture of who did what. In addition, as this trend of multiple authorship continues, grant and tenure committees are starting to request clarification of publication claims, and such a statement would help to delineate precisely what you contributed to the paper.

Hello, How to cite the article of Authorship: Difference Between “Contributor” and “Co-Author”? Warm regards

Thank you for sharing your query on our website. Since we are not aware of the writing style format of the research paper concerned, we would suggest you to refer to the following website : https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website . Accordingly you can choose the style, add the article link and create the relevant citation format for the paper. Please note that proper acknowledgement and citation of the reference is necessary to avoid any issues of plagiarism.

Let us know in case of any other queries.

An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a little research on this. And he in fact ordered me breakfast simply because I stumbled upon it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your website.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

How Can Researchers Work Towards Equal Authorship

In the past, authorship lacked a clear set of guidelines and sometimes excluded individuals who…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Insights into Assigning Authorship and Contributorship, and Open Access Publishing

ICMJE guidelines on authorship Avoiding authorship dilemma Overview of Open Knowledge Significance of open data…

• Publishing Research
• Understanding Ethics

Should First Authors Be Responsible for Scientific Misconduct?

You can also listen to this article as an audio recording. Scientific misconduct is a…

• Global Japanese Webinars

誰を論文の著者や貢献者とするか ― 研究者のためのオーサーシップ基礎知識

著者と貢献者の違い 何人まで著者として記載できるか 責任著者および共著者となれる条件 著者のためのリソース

学术作者和贡献者署名要怎么写

ICMJE 准则 谁有资格被列为作者 作者名单应该要多长 共同作者与第一作者

What You Must Know While Assigning Authorship to Your Manuscript

Authorship and Contributorship in Scientific Publications

Experts’ Take: Giving Proper Credit in Multi-authored Publications

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

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 student or supervisor be corresponding author for publications based on student research?

Papers published from an academic project (MSc or PhD) usually have two authors; the first author is the student who mainly conducted the research, and the second author is the professor who supervised the projects.

The corresponding author is the one who take the responsibility of a paper, and thus, some believe that students are not yet prepared to take this responsibility.

Ideally, who should be corresponding author for papers published by MSc or PhD projects?

I understand that it mainly depends on personal agreements and preferences, but I want to know which case is more reasonable from academic logic?

• publications
• professorship

• 2 If students are not yet prepared , how can they ever prepare unless they're going to be corresponding author? –  gerrit Commented Sep 3, 2013 at 22:12
• 9 “Papers published from an academic project usually have two authors” — sometimes , but not usually –  F'x Commented Sep 3, 2013 at 22:19
• 1 @F'x I wanted to define a simplified example. –  Googlebot Commented Sep 3, 2013 at 22:24
• 2 @fedja: So then why are some answers talking about people still being around 5-10 years later? –  JeffE Commented Sep 5, 2013 at 2:19
• 3 corresponding author is responsible to answer questions of both editors and readers — Weird. In my field, that's the responsibility of all authors. –  JeffE Commented Sep 24, 2013 at 13:40

9 Answers 9

Since the ordering of authors differs between fields the meaning and usefulness of a corresponding author also varies. In fields I am familiar with, the corresponding author is usually the same as the "first author" (quotes because it may not be literally the first). Many journals therefore do not explicitly identify a first author unless different from the "first". There are then several cases where the corresponding author may need to be identified. One example is when a person lacking a permanent academic address is first author. Then the supervisor may take on the responsibility for the paper and be corresponding author. This can be important since it can be near impossible to track down someone who has left academia and so the supervisor stands for continuity in terms of contact. There are many variants on this and in some cases, a person heading a project or who by legal obligations carries responsibility for a project may be identified as corresponding author. This could be the case with some governmental organisations where communications are funnelled through hierarchies for bureaucratic reasons. I am sure there are lots of examples good and bad but the main purpose of identifying corresponding author, unless first, is so that anyone requiring more information can go directly to the main source for such.

So based on this background and the field you are in you may find a good way to determine corresponding author. In most cases, I would say it is the person who has done the most work, or the one who "owns" the project. It is not clear in some cases whether it is the student or the advisor who should be corresponding author. One also has to weigh in the intellectual work behind the project as a whole and from that perspective the person who has done the work, perhaps a detail in a much bigger perspective, may not be the appropriate person for details although that person has done most of the work for the paper in question. So in some cases the question is definitely harder to answer. Not being corresponding author, does not necessarily detract much from being first author since such details are not visible in literature searches and CVs.

"The corresponding author is the one who take the responsibility of a paper". I've never heard this before. For example: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_04_16/caredit.a1000039 says "The corresponding author is the point of contact for editors, readers, and outside researchers who have questions about the contents of the paper. Often, the corresponding author is also the last author, but she or he may be listed first or even in the middle of the author list."

All authors take responsibility for the paper (or should). The point of the corresponding author is who to contact if you want to correspond about the paper. If this were someone who was likely to move institution (because they are finishing, or have finished their study), they are going to be hard to contact, so make it someone who's likely to hang around for a while. I've never seen anyone take any notice of who the corresponding author is.

• 6 They can give their permanent contact addresses not their current affiliation that they will change soon. That's why some people put their Gmail or yahoo mail addresses in their papers! –  sajjadG Commented Sep 24, 2013 at 13:13

I was always the corresponding author; my advisor(s) thought it was good for me, and they had other things to do than to fiddle around with LaTeX...

So, to answer your question, I think it is good for phd students to be the corresponding author; besides, if there is any trouble, you have always your advisor/coauthor to ask.

• I think this conflates the author who is doing the actual submission process (almost always the trainee) with the person with email address listed on the paper (in my experience, often the supervisor even if the trainee went through the forms). –  AJK Commented Jan 2, 2017 at 0:45

It varies widely, not only on your field's customs, but also on individual research groups. In the research groups I have worked in, and worked with, in chemical engineering , the corresponding author is usually the most “perennial” researcher, i.e. usually the PI/professor . The idea is to ensure that the corresponding author is a faculty member, meaning he is the person most likely to still be around in 5 to 10 years' time to answer questions about the work. (In that time, PhD students and post-docs may change field completely, exit academia, etc.)

Also, the PI is usually the one who gets to keep the archives (raw data, lab notebooks, etc.) in the long term, so it makes sense that way.

I think it mostly depends upon the mutual understanding between the supervisor(PI) and the student. I had a similar case with my PhD colleague. She wanted to be a corresponding author but the adviser of the study group (a large scale multidisciplinary study) denied which could be due to the factors mentioned above such as: the PI will be staying there at least for few years however the student might leave the institute or even academia.

In my opinion, it is very helpful for a PhD student be the corresponding author because being a corresponding author will improve some skills: experience in answering critiques from the reviewers, writing, giving reasonable explanations and so on. More importantly, it is the student who did most of the work for the publication and will be able to give answers to most of the queries from the reviewers.

This is something that ought to be agreed on in discussion between the student and supervising professor. Ideally, this decision should be made from the start of the research.

In my own situation, when I was completing my PhD, the 4 papers published had me as both the first author and corresponding author. My advisor told me that part of the research process would be to field any and all questions, concerns and queries that come from the paper.

Edited (in response to question edit): From an academic point of view, it can be argued that the student is the primary researcher, hence expert in that specific topic, hence would be the only one who can completely answer any questions.

I'm (as the postgrad and lead author) the corresponding author on a paper, rather than my supervisor, which is common here. I've had a few queries on the experiment and equipment, which realistically, as I did the work, and I'm not so busy as my supervisor I'm better placed to deal with.

When I was working as senior resident,the department head was the first author and also the corresponding author in all the scientific papers written by me. I thought that a senior person is better placed to answer any outside researcher's question easily and be available for years instead of a student who is likely to leave the institution once study period is completed. But once the internet facility has come, the point of being permanent or regular has become irrelevant and anybody can be contacted anywhere over E-mail.I feel that only those with maximum involvement in the scientific work should be the corresponding author as he only knows well about the work and can give reply on his own to any outside researcher's question regarding the contents of the paper.

Most of the time students never know how, what and where to write,they purely depends upon their supervisor,who is directly involved in this exercise.Paying regards is another factor that is also linked and making a segregation in teacher and taught is a good practice.Supervising any task is not easy,it requires complete involvement in form of legal, responsibilities & other issues as well.Therefore CA deserve proper place with dignity in research papers as it also carries a message.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd publications citations professorship thesis ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• On intersection theory on toric varieties
• Would it take less thrust overall to put an object into higher orbit?
• Does "any computer(s) you have" refer to one or all the computers?
• Would weightlessness (i.e. in thrill rides, planes, skydiving, etc.) be different on a Flat Earth?
• How old were Phineas and Ferb? What year was it?
• Book in which a hunter from Texas is transported to a magical world where he becomes the protector of two infant dragons
• Why would an incumbent politician or party need to be re-elected to fulfill a campaign promise?
• Is it possible for a company to dilute my shares to the point they are insignificant
• What is the cardinality of all possible wave function?
• Rearrange these numbers and symbols to make a true equation
• Can science inform philosophy?
• How many people could we get off of the planet in a month?
• Why is the identity of the actor voicing Spider-Man kept secret even in the commentary?
• What is the rationale behind requiring ATC to retire at age 56?
• Should I be able to see light from a IR Led with my own eyes?
• Is math a bad discipline for teaching jobs or is it just me?
• Home water pressure higher than city water pressure?
• How can flyby missions work?
• Are ～渋る and ～惜しむ any different as verbal suffixes?
• How to remove a file named "."?
• Why is Cohen's h useful to compare proportions when risk difference is so interpretable?
• Did polls adjust their methodology after overestimating Democrat's shares in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections in the Rust Belt?
• Is the Garmin Edge 530 still a good choice for a beginner in 2024?
• Strange bearings of Shimano FH-MT410-B

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Plast Surg
• v.43(2); Jul-Dec 2010

Authorship issue explained

Surajit bhattacharya.

Editor, IJPS E-mail: ni.oc.oohay@hbtijarus

When it comes to the fact that who should be an author and who should not be offered ghost authorship, it seem we are all in agreement.[ 1 ] Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on (c) final revision of the version to be published. Conditions (a), (b), and (c) must all are met.

However, when it comes to the sequence of authorship there seems to be a grey zone and exploitation at both ends of the spectrum. We have come across aggrieved Unit Chiefs and displeased residents in almost equal numbers. It is important for young authors to understand that there are two positions that count, the first author and the last author. Attached to either position is the status associated with being the author for correspondence. The best combination when one is young is to be first author and the author for correspondence. As one’s career progresses, being last author and author for correspondence signals that this is a paper from one’s Unit, he/she is the main person responsible for its contents, and a younger colleague has made major contributions to the paper, hence he/she is designated as the first author. The guidelines here are not as well defined as for authorship in general, Riesenberg and Lundberg[ 2 ] have made certain very important and simple suggestions to decide the sequence of authorship:

• The first author should be that person who contributed most to the work, including writing of the manuscript
• The sequence of authors should be determined by the relative overall contributions to the manuscript.
• It is common practice to have the senior author appear last, sometimes regardless of his or her contribution. The senior author, like all other authors, should meet all criteria for authorship.
• The senior author sometimes takes responsibility for writing the paper, especially when the research student has not yet learned the skills of scientific writing. The senior author then becomes the corresponding author, but should the student be the first author? Some supervisors put their students first, others put their own names first. Perhaps it should be decided on the absolute amount of time spent on the project by the student (in getting the data) and the supervisor (in providing help and in writing the paper). Or perhaps the supervisor should be satisfied with being corresponding author, regardless of time committed to the project.
• A sensible policy adopted by many supervisors is to give the student a fixed period of time (say 12 months) to write the first draft of the paper. If the student does not deliver, the supervisor may then write the paper and put her or his own name first.

The second issue raised in this letter is about the use of plurals. Our insistence of avoiding pronouns I, me and mine in all publications is very sound and logical. Even if it is a single author paper, surgery is a team game and we are virtually powerless without our unsung colleagues - residents, nurses, technicians etc. By using plurals we recognize their vital role in our success story. Where as in a multiple author paper, the author has no option but to call it ‘our work’ instead on ‘my paper’, even when he is writing the paper all by himself / herself, there were many hands helping him / her and it is our Journal policy to acknowledge the same.

• Find guidance
• Our organisation
• Core Practices
• Find a member
• Become a member
• Work with us

You are here

Home Resources Cases

The role of the lead author

An author on a "perspective/consensus" type paper continues to provide new editorial as well as substantial content comments on consecutive versions of a paper, and currently disagrees with the content of the final version of the paper. The other eight authors have approved the final version of the paper prepared and circulated by the lead author. At this stage, the lead author sees no rationale for making further content changes and hence intends to resolve the situation himself by suggesting to any authors who do not agree with him that they are removed from the authorship list and acknowledged for any key contributions (as appropriate).

Question(s) for the COPE Forum

• Is the suggested handling by the lead author appropriate? Are there are other solutions available/preferable? • Is it appropriate for a lead author to address an issue with the authors individually, initially face-to-face, and then inform/involve all of the authors in a second step for them to make a consensus decision? • What is the Forum’s advice on the role and responsibilities of a lead author more generally? Is there any available guidance on this?

The Forum agreed this is an authorship issue and relates to authorship practices. The "lead" author can have different meanings in different disciplines. There is no accepted general opinion on this issue—it can vary by convention and discipline. The lead author can be the first or last author, or the most senior author.

Editors would not normally become involved with these types of cases—editors usually insist that authors resolve any authorship issues before submission.

Ideally, all authors should agree—consensus should be reached. If the direction of a paper changes, all authors need to agree to the changes in writing. One solution is to ask each author to specify their contribution. CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy ) could be useful here. If the authors have made valid contributions to the paper, then the lead author cannot remove them from the paper.

The presenter updated the Forum that the case was resolved by formal discussion with all of the authors on a conference call. 

COPE resources:

What constitutes authorship discussion document

How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers

• Authorship and contributorship

Undergraduate Anu Iyer Leads Parkinson’s Research Study

Aug 15, 2024 —.

Iyer completed much of her research while in high school and submitted the paper for publication as a Georgia Tech first-year.

Anu Iyer , a Georgia Tech Dean’s Scholar, published her first research article as a first-year student — based on research conducted while she was in high school. She is the lead co-author of the paper published in  Scientific Reports , a  Nature Portfolio journal.

Iyer, now a second-year undergraduate majoring in biology with a pre-med focus, worked with researchers at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) to develop a novel voice-based diagnostic tool for Parkinson’s disease (PD).

“Essentially, we proved the feasibility of a telemedicine approach towards detecting PD,” says Iyer. “Through a three-second phone call, our machine-learning model recognizes patterns in data to detect Parkinson’s with a 97 percent accuracy rate.”

Iyer states that additional strengths of the project include the potential for detecting PD at an early stage, leading to improved treatment outcomes, and the practical benefits of a virtual diagnostic tool.

“Parkinson’s disease is a nervous system disorder that primarily affects the elderly population, and one of the many issues with detection is that symptoms must be analyzed in person,” explains Iyer. “In Arkansas, 75 percent of our population resides in medically underserved areas — it can be hard for them to access health facilities. Our research addresses the need for convenient detection via telemedicine.”

From science fairs to academic researcher

Iyer’s teachers at her STEM middle school encouraged her passion for science and discovery. A science fair enthusiast, Iyer led a sixth-grade team to win the state title for the Verizon Innovative Learning app, creating a smartphone app that turns off text notifications when a car reaches more than five miles per hour.

Iyer credits her middle school teachers for inspiring her to seek answers beyond what she found in her textbooks. During the summer between eighth and ninth grade, Iyer watched YouTube videos to teach herself machine learning, appreciating the opportunity to use artificial intelligence to analyze data and make predictions.

“Machine learning fascinates me because it holds so much potential,” says Iyer. “I've always been interested in computer science, but machine learning opened my eyes to new possibilities and taught me that I can pay it forward through applied bioinformatics.”

In ninth grade, she emailed UAMS professors with a research idea incorporating medicine and computer science. Her outreach led to a post as an undergraduate researcher, helping create a computer algorithm to detect eye disease. While working on a diagnostic AI model for malignancy, she began collaborating with  Fred Prior , the chair of Bioinformatics at UAMS, who became a valued mentor.

“Dr. Prior introduced me to the joys of research and how small changes can make a big difference in our world,” says Iyer.

Prior assigned her to the team focusing on Parkinson’s in her 11th grade year — and she soon began taking on more of an active leadership role in the research. She spent the rest of high school juggling coursework with constructing code and drafting proposals to create the computer algorithm capable of detecting PD.

Progress and service

Iyer’s desire to improve the world through research led her to Georgia Tech.

“One thing that spoke to me is the Progress and Service motto,” says Iyer. “My career goals include becoming an empathetic researcher focused on reducing healthcare disparities. Specifically, I hope to specialize in developing diagnostic tools that are affordable and available for underserved areas.”

As lead co-author of the PD research study, Iyer spent much of her first year working with Prior and UAMS, participating in Zoom calls every Saturday. As a second-year, Iyer intends to continue working with UAMS on PD and machine-learning research. She has also taken on a new role as multiple principal investigator for a study related to chronic back pain management.

Lainie Pomerleau,  who taught Iyer’s first-year English course, and is now an assistant professor of English at the College of Coastal Georgia, helped Iyer prepare the PD paper for publication. “Anu embodies Georgia Tech's mission to develop leaders who advance technology to improve the human condition,” says Pomerleau.

Despite her busy schedule, Iyer has immersed herself in the Georgia Tech community. She loves the climbing wall at the Campus Recreation Center and points to Cognitive Psychology as her favorite class. Iyer considers  Explore , the science-centered living and learning community, to be one of the highlights of her first year.

“I really enjoyed being a part of Explore, living with other students who prioritize science,” says Iyer. “It was easy to make friends because we all had similar classes.”

In the spring of her first year, she was selected as a College of Sciences Ambassador, accompanying prospective students and their parents to science-related courses and answering their questions about campus life.

She plans to get more involved with researchers at Georgia Tech.

“I am a biology major, but one amazing thing about Georgia Tech is that there is a lot of encouragement to join labs outside of your major and pursue your interests,” says Iyer. “I’d like to work in a Georgia Tech lab, particularly in neurology.”

Looking forward to her next few years at the Institute, she’s excited about the possibilities ahead:

“Georgia Tech is well known for groundbreaking research,” she says. “I want to take advantage of Tech’s many opportunities — and fulfill my ultimate goal of making a positive impact in the world.”

Four students pose with Georgia Tech mascot Buzz at the Georgia Aquarium.

As a first-year, Iyer enjoyed diving into Tech's many events and activities, such as Georgia Tech Night at the Aquarium.

Laura S. Smith  Communications Officer II  College of Sciences

This website uses cookies.  For more information, review our  Privacy & Legal Notice Questions? Please email [email protected]. More Info Decline --> Accept

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
• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2024

A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge

• Anthony J. I. Clarke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0304-0484 1 ,
• Christopher L. Kirkland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-8961 1 ,
• Richard E. Bevins 2 ,
• Nick J. G. Pearce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-9564 2 ,
• Stijn Glorie 3 &
• Rob A. Ixer 4  

Nature volume  632 ,  pages 570–575 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

83k Accesses

1 Citations

4587 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Archaeology

Understanding the provenance of megaliths used in the Neolithic stone circle at Stonehenge, southern England, gives insight into the culture and connectivity of prehistoric Britain. The source of the Altar Stone, the central recumbent sandstone megalith, has remained unknown, with recent work discounting an Anglo-Welsh Basin origin 1 , 2 . Here we present the age and chemistry of detrital zircon, apatite and rutile grains from within fragments of the Altar Stone. The detrital zircon load largely comprises Mesoproterozoic and Archaean sources, whereas rutile and apatite are dominated by a mid-Ordovician source. The ages of these grains indicate derivation from an ultimate Laurentian crystalline source region that was overprinted by Grampian (around 460 million years ago) magmatism. Detrital age comparisons to sedimentary packages throughout Britain and Ireland reveal a remarkable similarity to the Old Red Sandstone of the Orcadian Basin in northeast Scotland. Such a provenance implies that the Altar Stone, a 6 tonne shaped block, was sourced at least 750 km from its current location. The difficulty of long-distance overland transport of such massive cargo from Scotland, navigating topographic barriers, suggests that it was transported by sea. Such routing demonstrates a high level of societal organization with intra-Britain transport during the Neolithic period.

Similar content being viewed by others

The expansion of Acheulean hominins into the Nefud Desert of Arabia

Cryptic geological histories accessed through entombed and matrix geochronometers in dykes

The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Quignon site, Somme valley, France

Stonehenge, the Neolithic standing stone circle located on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, England, offers valuable insight into prehistoric Britain. Construction at Stonehenge began as early as 3000  bc , with subsequent modifications during the following two millennia 3 , 4 . The megaliths of Stonehenge are divided into two major categories: sarsen stones and bluestones (Fig. 1a ). The larger sarsens comprise duricrust silcrete predominantly sourced from the West Woods, Marlborough, approximately 25 km north of Stonehenge 5 , 6 . Bluestone, the generic term for rocks considered exotic to the local area, includes volcanic tuff, rhyolite, dolerite and sandstone lithologies 4 (Fig. 1a ). Some lithologies are linked with Neolithic quarrying sites in the Mynydd Preseli area of west Wales 7 , 8 . An unnamed Lower Palaeozoic sandstone, associated with the west Wales area on the basis of acritarch fossils 9 , is present only as widely disseminated debitage at Stonehenge and possibly as buried stumps (Stones 40g and 42c).

a , Plan view of Stonehenge showing exposed constituent megaliths and their provenance. The plan of Stonehenge was adapted from ref.  6 under a CC BY 4.0 license. Changes in scale and colour were made, and annotations were added. b , An annotated photograph shows the Altar Stone during a 1958 excavation. The Altar Stone photograph is from the Historic England archive. Reuse is not permitted.

The central megalith of Stonehenge, the Altar Stone (Stone 80), is the largest of the bluestones, measuring 4.9 × 1.0 × 0.5 m, and is a recumbent stone (Fig. 1b ), weighing 6 t and composed of pale green micaceous sandstone with distinctive mineralogy 1 , 2 , 10 (containing baryte, calcite and clay minerals, with a notable absence of K-feldspar) (Fig. 2 ).

Minerals with a modal abundance above 0.5% are shown with compositional values averaged across both thin sections. U–Pb ablation pits from laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS) are shown with age (in millions of years ago, Ma), with uncertainty at the 2 σ level.

Previous petrographic work on the Altar Stone has implied an association to the Old Red Sandstone 10 , 11 , 12 (ORS). The ORS is a late Silurian to Devonian sedimentary rock assemblage that crops out widely throughout Great Britain and Ireland (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). ORS lithologies are dominated by terrestrial siliciclastic sedimentary rocks deposited in continental fluvial, lacustrine and aeolian environments 13 . Each ORS basin reflects local subsidence and sediment infill and thus contains proximal crystalline signatures 13 , 14 .

Constraining the provenance of the Altar Stone could give insights into the connectivity of Neolithic people who left no written record 15 . When the Altar Stone arrived at Stonehenge is uncertain; however, it may have been placed within the central trilithon horseshoe during the second construction phase around 2620–2480  bc 3 . Whether the Altar Stone once stood upright as an approximately 4 m high megalith is unclear 15 ; nevertheless, the current arrangement has Stones 55b and 156 from the collapsed Great Trilithon resting atop the prone and broken Altar Stone (Fig. 1b ).

An early proposed source for the Altar Stone from Mill Bay, Pembrokeshire (Cosheston Subgroup of the Anglo-Welsh ORS Basin), close to the Mynydd Preseli source of the doleritic and rhyolitic bluestones, strongly influenced the notion of a sea transport route via the Bristol Channel 12 . However, inconsistencies in petrography and detrital zircon ages between the Altar Stone and the Cosheston Subgroup have ruled this source out 1 , 11 . Nonetheless, a source from elsewhere in the ORS of the Anglo-Welsh Basin was still considered likely, with an inferred collection and overland transport of the Altar Stone en route to Stonehenge from the Mynydd Preseli 1 . However, a source from the Senni Formation (Cosheston Subgroup) is inconsistent with geochemical and petrographic data, which shows that the Anglo-Welsh Basin is highly unlikely to be the source 2 . Thus, the ultimate provenance of the Altar Stone had remained an open question.

Studies of detrital mineral grains are widely deployed to address questions throughout the Earth sciences and have utility in archaeological investigations 16 , 17 . Sedimentary rocks commonly contain a detrital component derived from a crystalline igneous basement, which may reflect a simple or complex history of erosion, transport and deposition cycles. This detrital cargo can fingerprint a sedimentary rock and its hinterland. More detailed insights become evident when a multi-mineral strategy is implemented, which benefits from the varying degrees of robustness to sedimentary transportation in the different minerals 18 , 19 , 20 .

Here, we present in situ U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace element isotopic data for zircon, apatite and rutile from two fragments of the Altar Stone collected at Stonehenge: MS3 and 2010K.240 21 , 22 . In addition, we present comparative apatite U–Pb dates for the Orcadian Basin from Caithness and Orkney. We utilize statistical tools (Fig. 3 ) to compare the obtained detrital mineral ages and chemistry (Supplementary Information  1 – 3 ) to crystalline terranes and ORS successions across Great Britain, Ireland and Europe (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

a , Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of concordant zircon U–Pb ages from the Altar Stone and comparative age datasets, with ellipses at the 95% confidence level 58 . DIM 1 and DIM 2, dimensions 1 and 2. b , Cumulative probability plot of zircon U–Pb ages from crystalline terranes, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone. For a cumulative probability plot of all ORS basins, see Extended Data Fig. 8 .

a , Schematic map of Britain, showing outcrops of ORS and other Devonian sedimentary rocks, basement terranes and major faults. Potential Caledonian source plutons are colour-coded on the basis of age 28 . b , Kernel density estimate diagrams displaying zircon U–Pb age (histogram) and apatite Lu–Hf age (dashed line) spectra from the Altar Stone, the Orcadian Basin 25 and plausible crystalline source terranes. The apatite age components for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basins are shown below their respective kernel density estimates. Extended Data Fig. 3 contains kernel density estimates of other ORS and New Red Sandstone (NRS) age datasets.

Laurentian basement signatures

The crystalline basement terranes of Great Britain and Ireland, from north to south, are Laurentia, Ganderia, Megumia and East Avalonia (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Cadomia-Armorica is south of the Rheic Suture and encompasses basement rocks in western Europe, including northern France and Spain. East Avalonia, Megumia and Ganderia are partly separated by the Menai Strait Fault System (Fig. 4a ). Each terrane has discrete age components, which have imparted palaeogeographic information into overlying sedimentary basins 13 , 14 , 23 . Laurentia was a palaeocontinent that collided with Baltica and Avalonia (a peri-Gondwanan microcontinent) during the early Palaeozoic Caledonian Orogeny to form Laurussia 14 , 24 . West Avalonia is a terrane that includes parts of eastern Canada and comprised the western margin of Avalonia (Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

Statistical comparisons, using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, between zircon ages from the Laurentian crystalline basement and the Altar Stone indicate that at a 95% confidence level, no distinction in provenance is evident between Altar Stone detrital zircon U–Pb ages and those from the Laurentian basement. That is, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that both samples are from the same underlying age distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ).

Detrital zircon age components, defined by concordant analyses from at least 4 grains in the Altar Stone, include maxima at 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma (Extended Data Fig. 2 ), corresponding to known tectonomagmatic events and sources within Laurentia and Baltica, including the Grenville (1,095–980 Ma), Labrador (1,690–1,590 Ma), Gothian (1,660–1,520 Ma) and Svecokarellian (1,920–1,770 Ma) orogenies 25 .

Laurentian terranes are crystalline lithologies north of the Iapetus Suture Zone (which marks the collision zone between Laurentia and Avalonia) and include the Southern Uplands, Midland Valley, Grampian, Northern Highlands and Hebridean Terranes (Fig. 4a ). Together, these terranes preserve a Proterozoic to Archaean record of zircon production 24 , distinct from the southern Gondwanan-derived terranes of Britain 20 , 26 (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

Age data from Altar Stone rutile grains also point towards an ultimate Laurentian source with several discrete age components (Extended Data Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information  1 ). Group 2 rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone include Proterozoic ages from 1,724 to 591 Ma, with 3 grains constituting an age peak at 1,607 Ma, overlapping with Laurentian magmatism, including the Labrador and Pinwarian (1,690–1,380 Ma) orogenies 24 . Southern terranes in Britain are not characterized by a large Laurentian (Mesoproterozoic) crystalline age component 25 (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Instead, terranes south of the Iapetus Suture are defined by Neoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic components, with a minor component from around two billion years ago (Figs. 3b and  4b ).

U–Pb analyses of apatite from the Altar Stone define two distinct age groupings. Group 2 apatite U–Pb analyses define a lower intercept age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma ( n  = 9) (Extended Data Fig. 5 ), which overlaps, within uncertainty, to a zircon age component at 1,047 Ma, consistent with a Grenville source 25 . Apatite Lu–Hf dates at 1,496 and 1,151 Ma also imply distinct Laurentian sources 25 (Fig. 4b , Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ). Ultimately, the presence of Grenvillian apatite in the Altar Stone suggests direct derivation from the Laurentian basement, given the lability of apatite during prolonged chemical weathering 20 , 27 .

Grampian Terrane detrital grains

Apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone are dominated by regressions from common Pb that yield lower intercepts of 462 ± 4 Ma ( n  = 108) and 451 ± 8 Ma ( n  = 83), respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 ). A single concordant zircon analysis also yields an early Palaeozoic age of 498 ± 17 Ma. Hence, with uncertainty from both lower intercepts, Group 1 apatite and rutile analyses demonstrate a mid-Ordovician (443–466 Ma) age component in the Altar Stone. These mid-Ordovician ages are confirmed by in situ apatite Lu–Hf analyses, which define a lower intercept of 470 ± 29 Ma ( n  = 16) (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

Throughout the Altar Stone are sub-planar 100–200-µm bands of concentrated heavy resistive minerals. These resistive minerals are interpreted to be magmatic in origin, given internal textures (oscillatory zonation), lack of mineral overgrowths (in all dated minerals) (Fig. 2 ) and the igneous apatite trace element signatures 27 (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Moreover, there is a general absence of detrital metamorphic zircon grains, further supporting a magmatic origin for these grains.

The most appropriate source region for such mid-Ordovician grains within Laurentian basement is the Grampian Terrane of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Situated between the Great Glen Fault to the north and the Highland Boundary Fault to the south, the terrane comprises Neoproterozoic to Lower Palaeozoic metasediments termed the Dalradian Supergroup 28 , which are intruded by a compositionally diverse suite of early Palaeozoic granitoids and gabbros (Fig. 4a ). The 466–443 Ma age component from Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses overlaps with the terminal stages of Grampian magmatism and subsequent granite pluton emplacement north of the Highland Boundary Fault 28 (Fig. 4a ).

Geochemical classification plots for the Altar Stone apatite imply a compositionally diverse source, much like the lithological diversity within the Grampian Terrane 28 , with 61% of apatite classified as coming from felsic sources, 35% from mafic sources and 4% from alkaline sources (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Specifically, igneous rocks within the Grampian Terrane are largely granitoids, thus accounting for the predominance of felsic-classified apatite grains 29 . We posit that the dominant supply of detritus from 466–443 Ma came from the numerous similarly aged granitoids formed on the Laurentian margin 28 , which are present in both the Northern Highlands and the Grampian Terranes 28 (Fig. 4a ). The alkaline to calc-alkaline suites in these terranes are volumetrically small, consistent with the scarcity of alkaline apatite grains within the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 7 ). Indeed, the Glen Dessary syenite at 447 ± 3 Ma is the only age-appropriate felsic-alkaline pluton in the Northern Highlands Terrane 30 .

The Stacey and Kramers 31 model of terrestrial Pb isotopic evolution predicts a 207 Pb/ 206 Pb isotopic ratio ( 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i ) of 0.8601 for 465 Ma continental crust. Mid-Ordovician regressions through Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses yield upper intercepts for 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8603 ± 0.0033 and 0.8564 ± 0.0014, respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ). The similarity between apatite and rutile 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i implies they were sourced from the same Mid-Ordovician magmatic fluids. Ultimately, the calculated 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i value is consistent with the older (Laurentian) crust north of the Iapetus Suture in Britain 32 (Fig. 4a ).

Orcadian Basin ORS

The detrital zircon age spectra confirm petrographic associations between the Altar Stone and the ORS. Furthermore, the Altar Stone cannot be a New Red Sandstone (NRS) lithology of Permo-Triassic age. The NRS, deposited from around 280–240 Ma, unconformably overlies the ORS 14 . NRS, such as that within the Wessex Basin (Extended Data Fig. 1 ), has characteristic detrital zircon age components, including Carboniferous to Permian zircon grains, which are not present in the Altar Stone 1 , 23 , 26 , 33 , 34 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

An ORS classification for the Altar Stone provides the basis for further interpretation of provenance (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 8 ), given that the ORS crops out in distinct areas of Great Britain and Ireland, including the Anglo-Welsh border and south Wales, the Midland Valley and northeast Scotland, reflecting former Palaeozoic depocentres 14 (Fig. 4a ).

Previously reported detrital zircon ages and petrography show that ORS outcrops of the Anglo-Welsh Basin in the Cosheston Subgroup 1 and Senni Formation 2 are unlikely to be the sources of the Altar Stone (Fig. 4a ). ORS within the Anglo-Welsh Basin is characterized by mid-Palaeozoic zircon age maxima and minor Proterozoic components (Fig. 4a ). Ultimately, the detrital zircon age spectra of the Altar Stone are statistically distinct from the Anglo-Welsh Basin (Fig. 3a ). In addition, the ORS outcrops of southwest England (that is, south of the Variscan front), including north Devon and Cornwall (Cornubian Basin) (Fig. 4a ), show characteristic facies, including marine sedimentary structures and fossils along with a metamorphic fabric 13 , 26 , inconsistent with the unmetamorphosed, terrestrial facies of the Altar Stone 1 , 11 .

Another ORS succession with published age data for comparison is the Dingle Peninsula Basin, southwest Ireland. However, the presence of late Silurian (430–420 Ma) and Devonian (400–350 Ma) apatite, zircon and muscovite from the Dingle Peninsula ORS discount a source for the Altar Stone from southern Ireland 20 . The conspicuous absence of apatite grains of less than 450 Ma in age in the Altar Stone precludes the input of Late Caledonian magmatic grains to the source sediment of the Altar Stone and demonstrates that the ORS of the Altar Stone was deposited prior to or distally from areas of Late Caledonian magmatism, unlike the ORS of the Dingle Peninsula 20 . Notably, no distinction in provenance between the Anglo-Welsh Basin and the Dingle Peninsula ORS is evident (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05), suggesting that ORS basins south of the Iapetus Suture are relatively more homogenous in terms of their detrital zircon age components (Fig. 4a ).

In Scotland, ORS predominantly crops out in the Midland Valley and Orcadian Basins (Fig. 4a ). The Midland Valley Basin is bound between the Highland Boundary Fault and the Iapetus Suture and is located within the Midland Valley and Southern Uplands Terranes. Throughout Midland Valley ORS stratigraphy, detrital zircon age spectra broadly show a bimodal age distribution between Lower Palaeozoic and Mesoproterozoic components 35 , 36 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Indeed, throughout 9 km of ORS stratigraphy in the Midland Valley Basin and across the Sothern Uplands Fault, no major changes in provenance are recognized 36 (Fig. 4a ). Devonian zircon, including grains as young as 402 ± 5 Ma from the northern ORS in the Midland Valley Basin 36 , further differentiates this basin from the Altar Stone (Fig. 3a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). The scarcity of Archaean to late Palaeoproterozoic zircon grains within the Midland Valley ORS shows that the Laurentian basement was not a dominant detrital source for those rocks 35 . Instead, ORS of the Midland Valley is primarily defined by zircon from 475 Ma interpreted to represent the detrital remnants of Ordovician volcanism within the Midland Valley Terrane, with only minor and periodic input from Caledonian plutonism 35 .

The Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland, within the Grampian and Northern Highlands terranes, contains a thick package of mostly Mid-Devonian ORS, around 4 km thick in Caithness and up to around 8 km thick in Shetland 14 (Fig. 4a ). The detrital zircon age spectra from Orcadian Basin ORS provides the closest match to the Altar Stone detrital ages 25 (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 8 ). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on age spectra from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin fails to reject the null hypothesis that they are derived from the same underlying distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ). To the north, ORS on the Svalbard archipelago formed on Laurentian and Baltican basement rocks 37 . Similar Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, where each detrital zircon dataset is statistically indistinguishable, are obtained for ORS from Svalbard, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone.

Apatite U–Pb age components from Orcadian Basin samples from Spittal, Caithness (AQ1) and Cruaday, Orkney (CQ1) (Fig. 4a ) match those from the Altar Stone. Group 2 apatite from the Altar Stone at 1,018 ± 24 Ma is coeval with a Grenvillian age from Spittal at 1,013 ± 35 Ma. Early Palaeozoic apatite components at 473 ± 25 Ma and 466 ± 6 Ma, from Caithness and Orkney, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ), are also identical, within uncertainty, to Altar Stone Group 1 (462 ± 4 Ma) apatite U–Pb analyses and a Lu–Hf component at 470 ± 28 Ma supporting a provenance from the Orcadian Basin for the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

During the Palaeozoic, the Orcadian Basin was situated between Laurentia and Baltica on the Laurussian palaeocontinent 14 . Correlations between detrital zircon age components imply that both Laurentia and Baltica supplied sediment into the Orcadian Basin 25 , 36 . Detrital grains from more than 900 Ma within the Altar Stone are consistent with sediment recycling from intermediary Neoproterozoic supracrustal successions (for example, Dalradian Supergroup) within the Grampian Terrane but also from the Särv and Sparagmite successions of Baltica 25 , 36 . At around 470 Ma, the Grampian Terrane began to denude 28 . Subsequently, first-cycle detritus, such as that represented by Group 1 apatite and rutile, was shed towards the Orcadian Basin from the southeast 25 .

Thus, the resistive mineral cargo in the Altar Stone represents a complex mix of first and multi-cycle grains from multiple sources. Regardless of total input from Baltica versus Laurentia into the Orcadian Basin, crystalline terranes north of the Iapetus Suture (Fig. 4a ) have distinct age components that match the Altar Stone in contrast to Gondwanan-derived terranes to the south.

The Altar Stone and Neolithic Britain

Isotopic data for detrital zircon and rutile (U–Pb) and apatite (U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace elements) indicate that the Altar Stone of Stonehenge has a provenance from the ORS in the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Given this detrital mineral provenance, the Altar Stone cannot have been sourced from southern Britain (that is, south of the Iapetus Suture) (Fig. 4a ), including the Anglo-Welsh Basin 1 , 2 .

Some postulate a glacial transport mechanism for the Mynydd Preseli (Fig. 4a ) bluestones to Salisbury Plain 38 , 39 . However, such transport for the Altar Stone is difficult to reconcile with ice-sheet reconstructions that show a northwards movement of glaciers (and erratics) from the Grampian Mountains towards the Orcadian Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum and, indeed, previous Pleistocene glaciations 40 , 41 . Moreover, there is little evidence of extensive glacial deposition in central southern Britain 40 , nor are Scottish glacial erratics found at Stonehenge 42 . Sr and Pb isotopic signatures from animal and human remains from henges on Salisbury Plain demonstrate the mobility of Neolithic people within Britain 32 , 43 , 44 , 45 . Furthermore, shared architectural elements and rock art motifs between Neolithic monuments in Orkney, northern Britain, and Ireland point towards the long-distance movement of people and construction materials 46 , 47 .

Thus, we posit that the Altar Stone was anthropogenically transported to Stonehenge from northeast Scotland, consistent with evidence of Neolithic inhabitation in this region 48 , 49 . Whereas the igneous bluestones were brought around 225 km from the Mynydd Preseli to Stonehenge 50 (Fig. 4a ), a Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone demands a transport distance of at least 750 km (Fig. 4a ). Nonetheless, even with assistance from beasts of burden 51 , rivers and topographical barriers, including the Grampians, Southern Uplands and the Pennines, along with the heavily forested landscape of prehistoric Britain 52 , would have posed formidable obstacles for overland megalith transportation.

At around 5000  bc , Neolithic people introduced the common vole ( Microtus arvalis ) from continental Europe to Orkney, consistent with the long-distance marine transport of cattle and goods 53 . A Neolithic marine trade network of quarried stone tools is found throughout Britain, Ireland and continental Europe 54 . For example, a saddle quern, a large stone grinding tool, was discovered in Dorset and determined to have a provenance in central Normandy 55 , implying the shipping of stone cargo over open water during the Neolithic. Furthermore, the river transport of shaped sandstone blocks in Britain is known from at least around 1500  bc (Hanson Log Boat) 56 . In Britain and Ireland, sea levels approached present-day heights from around 4000  bc 57 , and although coastlines have shifted, the geography of Britain and Ireland would have permitted sea routes southward from the Orcadian Basin towards southern England (Fig. 4a ). A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone implies Neolithic transport spanning the length of Great Britain.

This work analysed two 30-µm polished thin sections of the Altar Stone (MS3 and 2010K.240) and two sections of ORS from northeast Scotland (Supplementary Information  4 ). CQ1 is from Cruaday, Orkney (59° 04′ 34.2″ N, 3° 18′ 54.6″ W), and AQ1 is from near Spittal, Caithness (58° 28′ 13.8″ N, 3° 27′ 33.6″ W). Conventional optical microscopy (transmitted and reflected light) and automated mineralogy via a TESCAN Integrated Mineral Analyser gave insights into texture and mineralogy and guided spot placement during LA-ICP–MS analysis. A CLARA field emission scanning electron microscope was used for textural characterization of individual minerals (zircon, apatite and rutile) through high-resolution micrometre-scale imaging under both back-scatter electron and cathodoluminescence. The Altar Stone is a fine-grained and well-sorted sandstone with a mean grain size diameter of ≤300 µm. Quartz grains are sub-rounded and monocrystalline. Feldspars are variably altered to fine-grained white mica. MS3 and 2010K.240 have a weakly developed planar fabric and non-planar heavy mineral laminae approximately 100–200 µm thick. Resistive heavy mineral bands are dominated by zircon, rutile, and apatite, with grains typically 10–40 µm wide. The rock is mainly cemented by carbonate, with localized areas of barite and quartz cement. A detailed account of Altar Stone petrography is provided in refs. 1 , 59 .

Zircon isotopic analysis

Zircon u–pb methods.

Two zircon U–Pb analysis sessions were completed at the GeoHistory facility in the John De Laeter Centre (JdLC), Curtin University, Australia. Ablations within zircon grains were created using an excimer laser RESOlution LE193 nm ArF with a Laurin Technic S155 cell. Isotopic data was collected with an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer, with high-purity Ar as the plasma carrier gas (flow rate 1.l min −1 ). An on-sample energy of ~2.3–2.7 J cm −2 with a 5–7 Hz repetition rate was used to ablate minerals for 30–40 s (with 25–60 s of background capture). Two cleaning pulses preceded analyses, and ultra-high-purity He (0.68 ml min −1 ) and N 2 (2.8 ml min −1 ) were used to flush the sample cell. A block of reference mineral was analysed following 15–20 unknowns. The small, highly rounded target grains of the Altar Stone (usually <30 µm in width) necessitated using a spot size diameter of ~24 µm for all ablations. Isotopic data was reduced using Iolite 4 60 with the U-Pb Geochronology data reduction scheme, followed by additional calculation and plotting via IsoplotR 61 . The primary matrix-matched reference zircon 62 used to correct instrumental drift and mass fractionation was GJ-1, 601.95 ± 0.40 Ma. Secondary reference zircon included Plešovice 63 , 337.13 ± 0.37 Ma, 91500 64 , 1,063.78 ± 0.65 Ma, OG1 65 3,465.4 ± 0.6 Ma and Maniitsoq 66 3,008.7 ± 0.6 Ma. Weighted mean U–Pb ages for secondary reference materials were within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  5 ).

Zircon U–Pb results

Across two LA-ICP–MS sessions, 83 U–Pb measurements were obtained on as many zircon grains; 41 were concordant (≤10% discordant), where discordance is defined using the concordia log distance (%) approach 67 . We report single-spot (grain) concordia ages, which have numerous benefits over conventional U–Pb/Pb–Pb ages, including providing an objective measure of discordance that is directly coupled to age and avoids the arbitrary switch between 206 Pb/ 238 U and 207 Pb/ 206 Pb. Furthermore, given the spread in ages (Early Palaeozoic to Archaean), concordia ages provide optimum use of both U–Pb/Pb–Pb ratios, offering greater precision over 206 Pb/ 238 U or 207 Pb/ 206 Pb ages alone.

Given that no direct sampling of the Altar Stone is permitted, we are limited in the amount of material available for destructive analysis, such as LA-ICP–MS. We collate our zircon age data with the U–Pb analyses 1 of FN593 (another fragment of the Altar Stone), filtered using the same concordia log distance (%) discordance filter 67 . The total concordant analyses used in this work is thus 56 over 3 thin sections, each showing no discernible provenance differences. Zircon concordia ages span from 498 to 2,812 Ma. Age maxima (peak) were calculated after Gehrels 68 , and peak ages defined by ≥4 grains include 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma.

For 56 concordant ages from 56 grains at >95% certainty, the largest unmissed fraction is calculated at 9% of the entire uniform detrital population 69 . In any case, the most prevalent and hence provenance important components will be sampled for any number of analyses 69 . We analysed all zircon grains within the spatial limit of the technique in the thin sections 70 . We used in situ thin-section analysis, which can mitigate against contamination and sampling biases in detrital studies 71 . Adding apatite (U–Pb and Lu–Hf) and rutile (U–Pb) analyses bolsters our confidence in provenance interpretations as these minerals will respond dissimilarly during transport.

Comparative zircon datasets

Zircon U–Pb compilations of the basement terranes of Britain and Ireland were sourced from refs. 20 , 26 . ORS detrital zircon datasets used for comparison include isotopic data from the Dingle Peninsula Basin 20 , Anglo-Welsh Basin 72 , Midland Valley Basin 35 , Svalbard ORS 37 and Orcadian Basin 25 . NRS zircon U–Pb ages were sourced from the Wessex Basin 33 . Comparative datasets were filtered for discordance as per our definition above 20 , 26 . Kernel density estimates for age populations were created within IsoplotR 61 using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma.

A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical test was implemented to compare the compiled zircon age datasets with the Altar Stone (Supplementary Information  6 ). This two-sided test compares the maximum probability difference between two cumulative density age functions, evaluating the null hypothesis that both age spectra are drawn from the same distribution based on a critical value dependent on the number of analyses and a chosen confidence level.

The number of zircon ages within the comparative datasets used varies from the Altar Stone ( n  = 56) to Laurentia ( n  = 2,469). Therefore, to address the degree of dependence on sample n , we also implemented a Monte Carlo resampling (1,000 times) procedure for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, including the uncertainty on each age determination to recalculate P values and standard deviations (Supplementary Information  7 ), based on the resampled distribution of each sample. The results from Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, using Monte Carlo resampling (and multidimensional analysis), taking uncertainty due to sample n into account, also support the interpretation that at >95% certainty, no distinction in provenance can be made between the Altar Stone zircon age dataset ( n  = 56) and those from the Orcadian Basin ( n  = 212), Svalbard ORS ( n  = 619 ) and the Laurentian basement (Supplementary Information  7 ).

MDS plots for zircon datasets were created using the MATLAB script of ref.  58 . Here, we adopted a bootstrap resampling (>1,000 times) with Procrustes rotation of Kolmogorov–Smirnov values, which outputs uncertainty ellipses at a 95% confidence level (Fig. 3a ). In MDS plots, stress is a goodness of fit indicator between dissimilarities in the datasets and distances on the MDS plot. Stress values below 0.15 are desirable 58 . For the MDS plot in Fig. 3a , the value is 0.043, which indicates an “excellent” fit 58 .

Rutile isotopic analysis

Rutile u–pb methods.

One rutile U–Pb analysis session was completed at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. Rutile grains were ablated (24 µm) using a Resonetics RESOlution M-50A-LR sampling system, using a Compex 102 excimer laser, and measured using an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass analyser. The analytical parameters included an on-sample energy of 2.7 J cm −2 , a repetition rate of 7 Hz for a total analysis time of 45 s, and 60 s of background data capture. The sample chamber was purged with ultrahigh purity He at a flow rate of 0.68 l min −1 and N 2 at 2.8 ml min −1 .

U–Pb data for rutile analyses was reduced against the R-10 rutile primary reference material 73 (1,091 ± 4 Ma). The secondary reference material used to monitor the accuracy of U–Pb ratios was R-19 rutile. The mean weighted 238 U/ 206 Pb age obtained for R-19 was 491 ± 10 (mean squared weighted deviation (MSWD) = 0.87, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.57) within uncertainty of the accepted age 74 of 489.5 ± 0.9 Ma.

Rutile grains with negligible Th concentrations can be corrected for common Pb using a 208 Pb correction 74 . Previously used thresholds for Th content have included 75 , 76 Th/U < 0.1 or a Th concentration >5% U. However, Th/U ratios for rutile from MS3 are typically > 1; thus, a 208 Pb correction is not applicable. Instead, we use a 207 -based common Pb correction 31 to account for the presence of common Pb. Rutile isotopic data was reduced within Iolite 4 60 using the U–Pb Geochronology reduction scheme and IsoplotR 61 .

Rutile U–Pb Results

Ninety-two rutile U–Pb analyses were obtained in a U–Pb single session, which defined two coherent age groupings on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

Group 1 constitutes 83 U–Pb rutile analyses, forming a well-defined mixing array on a Tera-Wasserburg plot between common and radiogenic Pb components. This array yields an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8563 ± 0.0014. The lower intercept implies an age of 451 ± 8 Ma. The scatter about the line (MSWD = 2.7) is interpreted to reflect the variable passage of rutile of diverse grain sizes through the radiogenic Pb closure temperature at ~600 °C during and after magmatic crystallization 77 .

Group 2 comprises 9 grains, with 207 Pb corrected 238 U/ 206 Pb ages ranging from 591–1,724 Ma. Three grains from Group 2 define an age peak 68 at 1,607 Ma. Given the spread in U–Pb ages, we interpret these Proterozoic grains to represent detrital rutile derived from various sources.

Apatite isotopic analysis

Apatite u–pb methods.

Two apatite U–Pb LA-ICP–MS analysis sessions were conducted at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. For both sessions, ablations were created using a RESOlution 193 nm excimer laser ablation system connected to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS with a RESOlution LE193 nm ArF and a Laurin Technic S155 cell ICP–MS. Other analytical details include a fluence of 2 J cm 2 and a 5 Hz repetition rate. For the Altar Stone section (MS3) and the Orcadian Basin samples (Supplementary Information  4 ), 24- and 20-µm spot sizes were used, respectively.

The matrix-matched primary reference material used for apatite U–Pb analyses was the Madagascar apatite (MAD-1) 78 . A range of secondary reference apatite was analysed, including FC-1 79 (Duluth Complex) with an age of 1,099.1 ± 0.6 Ma, Mount McClure 80 , 81 526 ± 2.1 Ma, Otter Lake 82 913 ± 7 Ma and Durango 31.44 ± 0.18 83  Ma. Anchored regressions (through reported 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i values) for secondary reference material yielded lower intercept ages within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  8 ).

Altar Stone apatite U–Pb results

This first session of apatite U–Pb of MS3 from the Altar Stone yielded 117 analyses. On a Tera–Wasserburg plot, these analyses form two discordant mixing arrays between common and radiogenic Pb components with distinct lower intercepts.

The array from Group 2 apatite, comprised of 9 analyses, yields a lower intercept equivalent to an age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8910 ± 0.0251. The f 207 % (the percentage of common Pb estimated using the 207 Pb method) of apatite analyses in Group 2 ranges from 16.66–88.8%, with a mean of 55.76%.

Group 1 apatite is defined by 108 analyses yielding a lower intercept of 462 ± 4 Ma (MSWD = 2.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8603 ± 0.0033. The f 207 % of apatite analyses in Group 1 range from 10.14–99.91%, with a mean of 78.65%. The slight over-dispersion of the apatite regression line may reflect some variation in Pb closure temperature in these crystals 84 .

Orcadian basin apatite U–Pb results

The second apatite U–Pb session yielded 138 analyses from samples CQ1 and AQ1. These data form three discordant mixing arrays between radiogenic and common Pb components on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

An unanchored regression through Group 1 apatite ( n  = 14) from the Cruaday sample (CQ1) yields a lower intercept of 473 ± 25 Ma (MSWD = 1.8) with an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8497 ± 0.0128. The f 207 % spans 38–99%, with a mean value of 85%.

Group 1 from the Spittal sample (AQ1), comprised of 109 analyses, yields a lower intercept equal to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.2). The upper 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i is equal to 0.8745 ± 0.0038. f 207 % values for this group range from 6–99%, with a mean value of 83%. A regression through Group 2 analyses ( n  = 17) from the Spittal sample yields a lower intercept of 1,013 ± 35 Ma (MSWD = 1) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.9038 ± 0.0101. f 207 % values span 25–99%, with a mean of 76%. Combined U–Pb analyses from Groups 1 from CQ1 and AQ1 ( n  = 123) yield a lower intercept equivalent to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8726 ± 0.0036, which is presented beneath the Orcadian Basin kernel density estimate in Fig. 4b .

Apatite Lu–Hf methods

Apatite grains were dated in thin-section by the in situ Lu–Hf method at the University of Adelaide, using a RESOlution-LR 193 nm excimer laser ablation system, coupled to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS/MS 85 , 86 . A gas mixture of NH 3 in He was used in the mass spectrometer reaction cell to promote high-order Hf reaction products, while equivalent Lu and Yb reaction products were negligible. The mass-shifted (+82 amu) reaction products of 176+82 Hf and 178+82 Hf reached the highest sensitivity of the measurable range and were analysed free from isobaric interferences. 177 Hf was calculated from 178 Hf, assuming natural abundances. 175 Lu was measured on mass as a proxy 85 for 176 Lu. Laser ablation was conducted with a laser beam of 43 µm at 7.5 Hz repetition rate and a fluency of approximately 3.5 J cm −2 . The analysed isotopes (with dwell times in ms between brackets) are 27 Al (2), 43 Ca (2), 57 Fe (2), 88 Sr (2), 89+85 Y (2), 90+83 Zr (2), 140+15 Ce (2), 146 Nd (2), 147 Sm (2), 172 Yb (5), 175 Lu (10), 175+82 Lu (50), 176+82 Hf (200) and 178+82 Hf (150). Isotopes with short dwell times (<10 ms) were measured to confirm apatite chemistry and to monitor for inclusions. 175+82 Lu was monitored for interferences on 176+82 Hf.

Relevant isotope ratios were calculated in LADR 87 using NIST 610 as the primary reference material 88 . Subsequently, reference apatite OD-306 78 (1,597 ± 7 Ma) was used to correct the Lu–Hf isotope ratios for matrix-induced fractionation 86 , 89 . Reference apatites Bamble-1 (1,597 ± 5 Ma), HR-1 (344 ± 2 Ma) and Wallaroo (1,574 ± 6 Ma) were monitored for accuracy verification 85 , 86 , 90 . Measured Lu–Hf dates of 1,098 ± 7 Ma, 346.0 ± 3.7 Ma and 1,575 ± 12 Ma, respectively, are in agreement with published values. All reference materials have negligible initial Hf, and weighted mean Lu–Hf dates were calculated in IsoplotR 61 directly from the (matrix-corrected) 176 Hf/ 176 Lu ratios.

For the Altar Stone apatites, which have variable 177 Hf/ 176 Hf compositions, single-grain Lu–Hf dates were calculated by anchoring isochrons to an initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition 90 of 3.55 ± 0.05, which spans the entire range of initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf ratios of the terrestrial reservoir (for example, ref. 91 ). The reported uncertainties for the single-grain Lu–Hf dates are presented as 95% confidence intervals, and dates are displayed on a kernel density estimate plot.

Apatite Lu–Hf results

Forty-five apatite Lu–Hf analyses were obtained from 2010K.240. Those with radiogenic Lu ingrowth or lacking common Hf gave Lu–Hf ages, defining four coherent isochrons and age groups.

Group 1, defined by 16 grains, yields a Lu–Hf isochron with a lower intercept of 470 ± 28 Ma (MSWD = 0.16, p ( χ 2 ) = 1). A second isochron through 5 analyses (Group 2) constitutes a lower intercept equivalent to 604 ± 38 Ma (MSWD = 0.14, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.94). Twelve apatite Lu–Hf analyses define Group 3 with a lower intercept of 1,123 ± 42 Ma (MSWD = 0.75, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.68). Three grains constitute the oldest grouping, Group 4 at 1,526 ± 186 Ma (MSWD = 0.014, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.91).

Apatite trace elements methods

A separate session of apatite trace element analysis was undertaken. Instrumentation and analytical set-up were identical to that described in 4.1. NIST 610 glass was the primary reference material for apatite trace element analyses. 43 Ca was used as the internal reference isotope, assuming an apatite Ca concentration of 40 wt%. Secondary reference materials included NIST 612 and the BHVO−2g glasses 92 . Elemental abundances for secondary reference material were generally within 5–10% of accepted values. Apatite trace element data was examined using the Geochemical Data Toolkit 93 .

Apatite trace elements results

One hundred and thirty-six apatite trace element analyses were obtained from as many grains. Geochemical classification schemes for apatite were used 29 , and three compositional groupings (felsic, mafic-intermediate, and alkaline) were defined.

Felsic-classified apatite grains ( n  = 83 (61% of analyses)) are defined by La/Nd of <0.6 and (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE (rare earth elements) of <0.5. The median values of felsic grains show a flat to slightly negative gradient on the chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs 94 . Felsic apatite’s median europium anomaly (Eu/Eu*) is 0.59, a moderately negative signature.

Mafic-intermediate apatite 29 ( n  = 48 (35% of grains)) are defined by (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE of 0.5–0.7 and a La/Nd of 0.5–1.5. In addition, apatite grains of this group typically exhibit a chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >5 and ΣREEs up to 1.25 wt%. Apatite grains classified as mafic-intermediate show a negative gradient on a chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs. The apatite grains of this group generally show the most enrichment in REEs compared to chondrite 94 . The median europium (Eu/Eu*) of mafic-intermediate apatite is 0.62, a moderately negative anomaly.

Lastly, alkaline apatite grains 29 ( n  = 5 (4% of analyses)) are characterized by La/Nd > 1.5 and a (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE > 0.8. The median europium anomaly of this group is 0.45. This grouping also shows elevated chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >10 and >0.5 wt% for the ΣREEs.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The isotopic and chemical data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files.

Bevins, R. E. et al. Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge ‘Altar Stone’: evidence from automated mineralogy and U–Pb zircon age dating. J. Archaeolog. Sci. 120 , 105188 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bevins, R. E. et al. The Stonehenge Altar Stone was probably not sourced from the Old Red Sandstone of the Anglo-Welsh Basin: time to broaden our geographic and stratigraphic horizons? J. Archaeolog. Sci. Rep. 51 , 104215 (2023).

Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. in Stonehenge for the Ancestors: Part 2: Synthesis (eds Pearson, M. P. et al.) 47–75 (Sidestone Press, 2022).

Pitts, M. W. How to Build Stonehenge (Thames & Hudson, 2022).

Nash, D. J. et al. Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabc0133 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nash, D. J. et al. Petrological and geochemical characterisation of the sarsen stones at Stonehenge. PLoS ONE 16 , e0254760 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Megalith quarries for Stonehenge’s bluestones. Antiquity 93 , 45–62 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89 , 1331–1352 (2015).

Ixer, R., Turner, P., Molyneux, S. & Bevins, R. The petrography, geological age and distribution of the Lower Palaeozoic Sandstone debitage from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 110 , 1–16 (2017).

Ixer, R. & Turner, P. A detailed re-examination of the petrography of the Altar Stone and other non-sarsen sandstones from Stonehenge as a guide to their provenance. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 99 , 1–9 (2006).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. E., Pirrie, D., Turner, P. & Power, M. No provenance is better than wrong provenance: Milford Haven and the Stonehenge sandstones. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 113 , 1–15 (2020).

Thomas, H. H. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. The Antiq. J. 3 , 239–260 (1923).

Kendall, R. S. The Old Red Sandstone of Britain and Ireland—a review. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128 , 409–421 (2017).

Woodcock, N., Holdsworth, R. E. & Strachan, R. A. in Geological History of Britain and Ireland (eds Woodcock, N. & Strachan, R. A.) Ch. 6 91–109 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).

Pearson, M. P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J. & Welham, K. Stonehenge: Making Sense of a Prehistoric Mystery (Council for British Archaeology, 2015).

Shewan, L. et al. Dating the megalithic culture of laos: Radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence and U/Pb zircon results. PLoS ONE 16 , e0247167 (2021).

Kelloway, S. et al. Sourcing olive jars using U–Pb ages of detrital zircons: a study of 16th century olive jars recovered from the Solomon Islands. Geoarchaeology 29 , 47–60 (2014).

Barham, M. et al. The answers are blowin’ in the wind: ultra-distal ashfall zircons, indicators of Cretaceous super-eruptions in eastern Gondwana. Geology 44 , 643–646 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gillespie, J., Glorie, S., Khudoley, A. & Collins, A. S. Detrital apatite U–Pb and trace element analysis as a provenance tool: Insights from the Yenisey Ridge (Siberia). Lithos 314–315 , 140–155 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fairey, B. J. et al. The provenance of the Devonian Old Red Sandstone of the Dingle Peninsula, SW Ireland; the earliest record of Laurentian and peri-Gondwanan sediment mixing in Ireland. J. Geol. Soc. 175 , 411–424 (2018).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Assessing the authenticity of a sample taken from the Altar Stone at Stonehenge in 1844 using portable XRF and automated SEM-EDS. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 49 , 103973 (2023).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Linking derived debitage to the Stonehenge Altar Stone using portable X-ray fluorescence analysis. Mineral. Mag. 86 , 688–700 (2022).

Morton, A. C., Chisholm, J. I. & Frei, D. Provenance of Carboniferous sandstones in the central and southern parts of the Pennine Basin, UK: evidence from detrital zircon ages. Proc. York. Geol. Soc. 63 , https://doi.org/10.1144/pygs2020-010 (2021).

Cawood, P. A., Nemchin, A. A., Strachan, R., Prave, T. & Krabbendam, M. Sedimentary basin and detrital zircon record along East Laurentia and Baltica during assembly and breakup of Rodinia. J. Geol. Soc. 164 , 257–275 (2007).

Strachan, R. A., Olierook, H. K. H. & Kirkland, C. L. Evidence from the U–Pb–Hf signatures of detrital zircons for a Baltican provenance for basal Old Red Sandstone successions, northern Scottish Caledonides. J. Geol. Soc. 178 , https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-241 (2021).

Stevens, T. & Baykal, Y. Detrital zircon U–Pb ages and source of the late Palaeocene Thanet Formation, Kent, SE England. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 132 , 240–248 (2021).

O’Sullivan, G., Chew, D. M., Kenny, G., Heinrichs, I. & Mulligan, D. The trace element composition of apatite and its application to detrital provenance studies. Earth Sci. Rev. 201 , 103044 (2020).

Oliver, G., Wilde, S. & Wan, Y. Geochronology and geodynamics of Scottish granitoids from the late Neoproterozoic break-up of Rodinia to Palaeozoic collision. J. Geol. Soc. 165 , 661–674 (2008).

Fleischer, M. & Altschuler, Z. S. The lanthanides and yttrium in minerals of the apatite group-an analysis of the available data. Neu. Jb. Mineral. Mh. 10 , 467–480 (1986).

Goodenough, K. M., Millar, I., Strachan, R. A., Krabbendam, M. & Evans, J. A. Timing of regional deformation and development of the Moine Thrust Zone in the Scottish Caledonides: constraints from the U–Pb geochronology of alkaline intrusions. J. Geol. Soc. 168 , 99–114 (2011).

Stacey, J. S. & Kramers, J. D. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26 , 207–221 (1975).

Evans, J. A. et al. Applying lead (Pb) isotopes to explore mobility in humans and animals. PLoS ONE 17 , e0274831 (2022).

Morton, A., Knox, R. & Frei, D. Heavy mineral and zircon age constraints on provenance of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (Triassic) in the eastern Wessex Basin, UK. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127 , 514–526 (2016).

Morton, A., Hounslow, M. W. & Frei, D. Heavy-mineral, mineral-chemical and zircon-age constraints on the provenance of Triassic sandstones from the Devon coast, southern Britain. Geologos 19 , 67–85 (2013).

Phillips, E. R., Smith, R. A., Stone, P., Pashley, V. & Horstwood, M. Zircon age constraints on the provenance of Llandovery to Wenlock sandstones from the Midland Valley terrane of the Scottish Caledonides. Scott. J. Geol. 45 , 131–146 (2009).

McKellar, Z., Hartley, A. J., Morton, A. C. & Frei, D. A multidisciplinary approach to sediment provenance analysis of the late Silurian–Devonian Lower Old Red Sandstone succession, northern Midland Valley Basin, Scotland. J. Geol. Soc. 177 , 297–314 (2019).

Beranek, L. P., Gee, D. G. & Fisher, C. M. Detrital zircon U–Pb–Hf isotope signatures of Old Red Sandstone strata constrain the Silurian to Devonian paleogeography, tectonics, and crustal evolution of the Svalbard Caledonides. GSA Bull. 132 , 1987–2003 (2020).

John, B. The Stonehenge Bluestones (Greencroft Books, 2018).

John, B. The Stonehenge bluestones did not come from Waun Mawn in West Wales. The Holocene https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836241236318 (2024).

Clark, C. D. et al. Growth and retreat of the last British–Irish Ice Sheet, 31 000 to 15 000 years ago: the BRITICE-CHRONO reconstruction. Boreas 51 , 699–758 (2022).

Gibbard, P. L. & Clark, C. D. in Developments in Quaternary Sciences , Vol. 15 (eds Ehlers, J. et al.) 75–93 (Elsevier, 2011).

Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N., Scourse, J. & Daw, T. Lithological description and provenancing of a collection of bluestones from excavations at Stonehenge by William Hawley in 1924 with implications for the human versus ice transport debate of the monument’s bluestone megaliths. Geoarchaeology 38 , 771–785 (2023).

Snoeck, C. et al. Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Sci. Rep. 8 , 10790 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Viner, S., Evans, J., Albarella, U. & Pearson, M. P. Cattle mobility in prehistoric Britain: strontium isotope analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). J. Archaeolog. Sci. 37 , 2812–2820 (2010).

Evans, J. A., Chenery, C. A. & Fitzpatrick, A. P. Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48 , 309–321 (2006).

Bradley, R. Beyond the bluestones: links between distant monuments in Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 98 , 821–828 (2024).

Bradley, R. Long distance connections within Britain and Ireland: the evidence of insular rock art. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 89 , 249–271 (2023).

Fairweather, A. D. & Ralston, I. B. M. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie, Grampian Region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67 , 313–323 (1993).

Bayliss, A., Marshall, P., Richards, C. & Whittle, A. Islands of history: the Late Neolithic timescape of Orkney. Antiquity 91 , 1171–1188 (2017).

Parker Pearson, M. et al. in Megaliths and Geology (eds Bouventura, R. et al.) 151–169 (Archaeopress Publishing, 2020).

Pigière, F. & Smyth, J. First evidence for cattle traction in Middle Neolithic Ireland: A pivotal element for resource exploitation. PLoS ONE 18 , e0279556 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Godwin, H. History of the natural forests of Britain: establishment, dominance and destruction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 271 , 47–67 (1975).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Martínková, N. et al. Divergent evolutionary processes associated with colonization of offshore islands. Mol. Ecol. 22 , 5205–5220 (2013).

Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

Peacock, D., Cutler, L. & Woodward, P. A Neolithic voyage. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 39 , 116–124 (2010).

Pinder, A. P., Panter, I., Abbott, G. D. & Keely, B. J. Deterioration of the Hanson Logboat: chemical and imaging assessment with removal of polyethylene glycol conserving agent. Sci. Rep. 7 , 13697 (2017).

Harff, J. et al. in Submerged Landscapes of the European Continental Shelf: Quaternary Paleoenvironments (eds Flemming, N. C. et al.) 11–49 (2017).

Nordsvan, A. R., Kirscher, U., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Brennan, D. T. Resampling (detrital) zircon age distributions for accurate multidimensional scaling solutions. Earth Sci. Rev. 204 , 103149 (2020).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. & Turner, P. Alternative Altar Stones? Carbonate-cemented micaceous sandstones from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 112 , 1–13 (2019).

Paton, C., Hellstrom, J. C., Paul, B., Woodhead, J. D. & Hergt, J. M. Iolite: freeware for the visualisation and processing of mass spectrometric data. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 26 , 2508–2518 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. IsoplotR: a free and open toolbox for geochronology. Geosci. Front. 9 , 1479–1493 (2018).

Jackson, S. E., Pearson, N. J., Griffin, W. L. & Belousova, E. A. The application of laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon geochronology. Chem. Geol. 211 , 47–69 (2004).

Sláma, J. et al. Plešovice zircon—A new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 249 , 1–35 (2008).

Wiedenbeck, M. et al. Three natural zircon standards for U-Th-Pb, Lu–Hf, trace element and REE analyses. Geostand. Newslett. 19 , 1–23 (1995).

Stern, R. A., Bodorkos, S., Kamo, S. L., Hickman, A. H. & Corfu, F. Measurement of SIMS instrumental mass fractionation of Pb isotopes during zircon dating. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 145–168 (2009).

Marsh, J. H., Jørgensen, T. R. C., Petrus, J. A., Hamilton, M. A. & Mole, D. R. U-Pb, trace element, and hafnium isotope composition of the Maniitsoq zircon: a potential new Archean zircon reference material. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2019 , 18 (2019).

Vermeesch, P. On the treatment of discordant detrital zircon U–Pb data. Geochronology 3 , 247–257 (2021).

Gehrels, G. in Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances (eds Busby, C. & Azor, A.) 45–62 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. How many grains are needed for a provenance study? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224 , 441–451 (2004).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M., Kirkland, C. L. & Ware, B. Every zircon deserves a date: selection bias in detrital geochronology. Geol. Mag. 158 , 1135–1142 (2021).

Zutterkirch, I. C., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Elders, C. Thin-section detrital zircon geochronology mitigates bias in provenance investigations. J. Geol. Soc. 179 , jgs2021–070 (2021).

Morton, A., Waters, C., Fanning, M., Chisholm, I. & Brettle, M. Origin of Carboniferous sandstones fringing the northern margin of the Wales-Brabant Massif: insights from detrital zircon ages. Geol. J. 50 , 553–574 (2015).

Luvizotto, G. et al. Rutile crystals as potential trace element and isotope mineral standards for microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 261 , 346–369 (2009).

Zack, T. et al. In situ U–Pb rutile dating by LA-ICP-MS: 208 Pb correction and prospects for geological applications. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 162 , 515–530 (2011).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Reorganization of continent-scale sediment routing based on detrital zircon and rutile multi-proxy analysis. Basin Res. 35 , 363–386 (2023).

Liebmann, J., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Rutile ages and thermometry along a Grenville anorthosite pathway. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 24 , e2022GC010330 (2023).

Zack, T. & Kooijman, E. Petrology and geochronology of rutile. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 83 , 443–467 (2017).

Thompson, J. et al. Matrix effects in Pb/U measurements during LA-ICP-MS analysis of the mineral apatite. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 31 , 1206–1215 (2016).

Schmitz, M. D., Bowring, S. A. & Ireland, T. R. Evaluation of Duluth Complex anorthositic series (AS3) zircon as a U–Pb geochronological standard: new high-precision isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry results. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 , 3665–3672 (2003).

Schoene, B. & Bowring, S. U–Pb systematics of the McClure Mountain syenite: thermochronological constraints on the age of the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar standard MMhb. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 151 , 615–630 (2006).

Thomson, S. N., Gehrels, G. E., Ruiz, J. & Buchwaldt, R. Routine low-damage apatite U–Pb dating using laser ablation-multicollector-ICPMS. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003928 (2012).

Barfod, G. H., Krogstad, E. J., Frei, R. & Albarède, F. Lu–Hf and PbSL geochronology of apatites from Proterozoic terranes: a first look at Lu–Hf isotopic closure in metamorphic apatite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69 , 1847–1859 (2005).

McDowell, F. W., McIntosh, W. C. & Farley, K. A. A precise 40 Ar– 39 Ar reference age for the Durango apatite (U–Th)/He and fission-track dating standard Chem. Geol. 214 , 249–263 (2005).

Kirkland, C. L. et al. Apatite: a U–Pb thermochronometer or geochronometer? Lithos 318-319 , 143–157 (2018).

Simpson, A. et al. In-situ Lu Hf geochronology of garnet, apatite and xenotime by LA ICP MS/MS. Chem. Geol. 577 , 120299 (2021).

Glorie, S. et al. Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 537 , 165–184 (2024).

Norris, C. & Danyushevsky, L. Towards estimating the complete uncertainty budget of quantified results measured by LA-ICP-MS. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2018 , 1894 (2018).

Nebel, O., Morel, M. L. A. & Vroon, P. Z. Isotope dilution determinations of Lu, Hf, Zr, Ta and W, and Hf isotope compositions of NIST SRM 610 and 612 glass wafers. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 487–499 (2009).

Kharkongor, M. B. K. et al. Apatite laser ablation LuHf geochronology: A new tool to date mafic rocks. Chem. Geol. 636 , 121630 (2023).

Glorie, S. et al. Detrital apatite Lu–Hf and U–Pb geochronology applied to the southwestern Siberian margin. Terra Nova 34 , 201–209 (2022).

Spencer, C. J., Kirkland, C. L., Roberts, N. M. W., Evans, N. J. & Liebmann, J. Strategies towards robust interpretations of in situ zircon Lu–Hf isotope analyses. Geosci. Front. 11 , 843–853 (2020).

Jochum, K. P. et al. GeoReM: a new geochemical database for reference materials and isotopic standards. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 29 , 333–338 (2005).

Janousek, V., Farrow, C. & Erban, V. Interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: introducing Geochemical Data Toolkit (GCDkit). J. Petrol. 47 , 1255–1259 (2006).

Boynton, W. V. in Developments in Geochemistry , Vol. 2 (ed. Henderson, P.) 63–114 (Elsevier, 1984).

Landing, E., Keppie, J. D., Keppie, D. F., Geyer, G. & Westrop, S. R. Greater Avalonia—latest Ediacaran–Ordovicia “peribaltic” terrane bounded by continental margin prisms (“Ganderia”, Harlech Dome, Meguma): review, tectonic implications, and paleogeography. Earth Sci. Rev. 224 , 103863 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP200101881). Sample material was loaned from the Salisbury Museum and Amgueddfa Cymru–Museum Wales and sampled with permission. The authors thank A. Green for assistance in accessing the Salisbury Museum material; B. McDonald, N. Evans, K. Rankenburg and S. Gilbert for their help during isotopic analysis; and P. Sampaio for assistance with statistical analysis. Instruments in the John de Laeter Centre, Curtin University, were funded via AuScope, the Australian Education Investment Fund, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and the Australian Government. R.E.B. acknowledges a Leverhulme Trust Emeritus Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Anthony J. I. Clarke & Christopher L. Kirkland

Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK

Richard E. Bevins & Nick J. G. Pearce

Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Stijn Glorie

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK

Rob A. Ixer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.J.I.C.: writing, original draft, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, project administration, conceptualization and methodology. C.L.K.: supervision, resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, conceptualization and methodology. R.E.B.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. N.J.G.P.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. S.G.: resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, supervision, and methodology. R.A.I.: writing, review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. I. Clarke .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Tim Kinnaird and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 geological maps of potential source terranes for the altar stone..

a , Schematic map of the North Atlantic region with the crystalline terranes in the Caledonian-Variscan orogens depicted prior to the opening of the North Atlantic, adapted after ref.  95 . b , Schematic map of Britain and Ireland, showing outcrops of Old Red Sandstone, basement terranes, and major faults with reference to Stonehenge.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Altar Stone zircon U–Pb data.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot for all concordant (≤10% discordant) zircon analyses reported from three samples of the Altar Stone. Discordance is defined using the concordia log % distance approach, and analytical ellipses are shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. The ellipse colour denotes the sample. Replotted isotopic data for thin-section FN593 is from ref. 1 . b , Kernel density estimate for concordia U–Pb ages of concordant zircon from the Altar Stone, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. Fifty-six concordant analyses are shown from 113 measurements. A rug plot is given below the kernel density estimate, marking the age of each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparative kernel density estimates of concordant zircon concordia ages from the Altar Stone, crystalline sources terranes, and comparative sedimentary rock successions.

Each plot uses a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The zircon U–Pb geochronology source for each comparative dataset is shown with their respective kernel density estimate. Zircon age data for basement terranes (right side of the plot) was sourced from refs. 20 , 26 .

Extended Data Fig. 4 Plots of rutile U–Pb ages.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot of rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone (thin-section MS3). Isotopic data is shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. b , Kernel density estimate for Group 2 rutile 207 Pb corrected 206 Pb/ 238 U ages, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 25 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks the age for each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Apatite Tera-Wasserburg U–Pb plots for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin.

a , Altar Stone apatite U–Pb analyses from thin-section MS3. b , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample AQ1, Spittal, Caithness. c , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample CQ1, Cruaday, Orkney. All data are shown as ellipses at the two-sigma uncertainty level. Regressions through U–Pb data are unanchored.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Combined kernel density estimate and histogram for apatite Lu–Hf single-grain ages from the Altar Stone.

Lu–Hf apparent ages from thin-section 2010K.240. Kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks each calculated age. Single spot ages are calculated assuming an initial average terrestrial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition (see  Methods ).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Apatite trace element classification plots for the Altar Stone thin-section MS3.

Colours for all plots follow the geochemical discrimination defined in A. a , Reference 29  classification plot for apatite with an inset pie chart depicting the compositional groupings based on these geochemical ratios. b , The principal component plot of geochemical data from apatite shows the main eigenvectors of geochemical dispersion, highlighting enhanced Nd and La in the distinguishing groups. Medians for each group are denoted with a cross. c , Plot of total rare earth elements (REE) (%) versus (Ce/Yb) n with Mahalanobis ellipses around compositional classification centroids. A P = 0.5 in Mahalanobis distance analysis represents a two-sided probability, indicating that 50% of the probability mass of the chi-squared distribution for that compositional grouping is contained within the ellipse. This probability is calculated based on the cumulative distribution function of the chi-squared distribution. d , Chondrite normalized REE plot of median apatite values for each defined apatite classification type.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Cumulative probability density function plot.

Cumulative probability density function plot of comparative Old Red Sandstone detrital zircon U–Pb datasets (concordant ages) versus the Altar Stone. Proximity between cumulative density probability lines implies similar detrital zircon age populations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information 1.

Zircon, rutile, and apatite U–Pb data for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin samples. A ) Zircon U–Pb data for MS3, 2010K.240, and FN593. B ) Zircon U–Pb data for secondary references. C ) Rutile U–Pb data for MS3. D ) Rutile U–Pb data for secondary references. E ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for MS3. F ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references. G ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for Orcadian Basin samples. H ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references.

Reporting Summary

Peer review file, supplementary information 2.

Apatite Lu–Hf data for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite Lu–Hf isotopic data and ages for thin-section 2010K.240. B) Apatite Lu–Hf data for secondary references.

Supplementary Information 3

Apatite trace elements for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite trace element data for MS3. B) Apatite trace element secondary reference values.

Supplementary Information 4–8

Supplementary Information 4 : Summary of analyses. Summary table of analyses undertaken in this work on samples from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin. Supplementary Information 5: Summary of zircon U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for zircon U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work. Supplementary Information 6: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 7: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, with Monte Carlo resampling. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (with Monte Carlo resampling) on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 8: Summary of apatite U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for the apatite U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clarke, A.J.I., Kirkland, C.L., Bevins, R.E. et al. A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature 632 , 570–575 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2023

Accepted : 03 June 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

Issue Date : 15 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

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

This article is cited by

Stonehenge’s enigmatic centre stone was hauled 800 kilometres from scotland.

• Nisha Gaind

Nature (2024)

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

Research: How to Build Consensus Around a New Idea

• Devon Proudfoot
• Wayne Johnson

Strategies for overcoming the disagreements that can stymie innovation.

Previous research has found that new ideas are seen as risky and are often rejected. New research suggests that this rejection can be due to people’s lack of shared criteria or reference points when evaluating a potential innovation’s value. In a new paper, the authors find that the more novel the idea, the more people differ on their perception of its value. They also found that disagreement itself can make people view ideas as risky and make them less likely to support them, regardless of how novel the idea is. To help teams get on the same page when it comes to new ideas, they suggest gathering information about evaluator’s reference points and developing criteria that can lead to more focused discussions.

Picture yourself in a meeting where a new idea has just been pitched, representing a major departure from your company’s standard practices. The presenter is confident about moving forward, but their voice is quickly overtaken by a cacophony of opinions from firm opposition to enthusiastic support. How can you make sense of the noise? What weight do you give each of these opinions? And what does this disagreement say about the idea?

• DP Devon Proudfoot is an Associate Professor of Human Resource Studies at Cornell’s ILR School. She studies topics related to diversity and creativity at work.
• Wayne Johnson is a researcher at the Utah Eccles School of Business. He focuses on evaluations and decisions about new information, including persuasion regarding creative ideas and belief change.

Partner Center

• Enroll & Pay
• Media Interview Tips
• KU Communicator Resources
• Find a KU Faculty Expert
• When Experts Attack! podcast
• Hometown News

University of Kansas awarded $26 million for new Engineering Research Center from National Science Foundation

Wed, 08/21/2024

Cody Howard

LAWRENCE — The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded the University of Kansas $26 million to establish a new Gen-4 Engineering Research Center (ERC) — Environmentally Applied Refrigerant Technology Hub (EARTH) — that will create a sustainable and circular refrigerant economy.

NSF’s Engineering Research Centers bring universities and businesses together to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace.

“NSF's Engineering Research Centers ask big questions in order to catalyze solutions with far-reaching impacts,” NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan said. “NSF Engineering Research Centers are powerhouses of discovery and innovation, bringing America's great engineering minds to bear on our toughest challenges. By collaborating with industry and training the workforce of the future, ERCs create an innovation ecosystem that can accelerate engineering innovations, producing tremendous economic and societal benefits for the nation.”

KU’s ERC EARTH was selected from among hundreds of proposed centers.

“Working closely with industry partners, EARTH will have the resources and expertise to solve the technical, environmental and economic challenges required to create a sustainable refrigerant lifecycle that will benefit Kansans, the nation and the world. In doing this work, the center is a prime example of how the University of Kansas is driving economic development in Kansas," said Douglas A. Girod, University of Kansas chancellor.

KU is well positioned to lead this effort.

“The University of Kansas has a talented workforce and robust research capabilities,” said Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran. “This new research center will allow Kansans to lead the way in developing the next generation of refrigerant technology, increasing U.S. competitiveness in an important technology and industry. Through my leadership role on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee which funds federal scientific priorities, I am pleased to help fund the U.S. National Science Foundation, which is critical to advancing U.S. research and development.”  

KU is the lead institution and is joined by partners at the University of Notre Dame, University of Maryland, University of Hawai'i, University of South Dakota and Lehigh University. 

Mark Shiflett serves as director for ERC EARTH. Shiflett is a KU Foundation Distinguished Professor in the Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering and director of the Wonderful Institute for Sustainable Engineering.

“EARTH’s operational design will cultivate inclusive, interdisciplinary research collaborations and foster workforce development. The EARTH team will partner with community colleges and technical schools to ensure availability of the needed workforce at all levels,” Shiflett said. 

At the heart of ERC EARTH’s work is reimagining the process for heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) systems across the globe. EARTH will develop sustainable, accessible and equitable refrigerant technologies and practices through research, education and innovation that will improve quality of life and combat climate change. 

HVACR systems are widespread throughout society, enabling transportation and preservation of fresh foods, storage of medicines and cooling of buildings. Most current refrigerants are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which have high global-warming potential. As a result of leaks from existing systems and the energy required to operate them, HFCs account for nearly 8% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.

In response, the U.S. and 170 other countries are phasing down HFCs in accordance with domestic and international agreements signed in recent years, which creates a tremendous challenge to responsibly and sustainably replace billions of kilograms of refrigerants.

ERC EARTH will take a multifaceted approach to address this challenge.

“Multidisciplinary research teams will focus on three key areas: promoting the recycling and repurposing of refrigerants, developing transformative refrigerants and creating next-generation cooling and heating technologies with higher energy efficiency,” Shiflett said.

At its core, ERC EARTH will address a critical challenge facing society.

“There is a tremendous need to develop cooling/heating technologies that use less energy and new refrigerants that are safe for the environment. EARTH will be a critical national resource to address these challenges. The University of Kansas School of Engineering is proud to be leading this collaboration, which leverages multiple academic and industrial partners,” said Mary Rezac, dean of the KU School of Engineering.

This is one of the largest federally funded grants in KU history, with the potential to become the largest if the renewal option is successful. The project is renewable after five years for another $26 million dollars, for a total of 10 years and $52 million.

Media Contacts

Erinn Barcomb-Peterson

KU News Service

785-864-8858

Mark Shiflett

Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering

[email protected]