国自然 z-bio 2025-10-20 3370

　　Recently, discussions on the importance of the contributions of the “first author” and “corresponding author” in scientific research review have triggered a heated debate among experts. The focus of this topic is: In the scientific research review process, is the scientific research contribution of the "first author" more critical, or is the academic status of the "corresponding author" more valuable? In response to this issue, the review experts conducted in-depth analyzes from different perspectives and gave their own opinions.

　　01

　　2026 National Natural Science Application

　　Is it necessary to indicate the first author or corresponding author?

　　In 2023, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) issued new regulations, one of which is to cancel the requirement to indicate the first author or corresponding author when filling in research results such as papers.

　　However, in the 2025 National Nature Guide, for representative papers in personal resumes, it is clearly required that the signature of the individual should be truthfully marked, and the first author or corresponding author must not be falsely marked. This regulation is intended to emphasize the accurate display of an individual's true contribution in academic achievements and prevent false signatures from causing the true contribution of the author of the paper to be inaccurately presented.

　　This also means that whether and how to mark the application process in 2026 is subject to the latest guidelines published by the NSFC. Applicants must check the latest application guidelines before submitting!

　　02

　　First of all, it must be clear

　　The difference between the first author and the corresponding author. The first author: The first author of a paper is the researcher who has made the greatest contribution to the work of the paper. He is also the main executor of the specific work, the implementer of the front-line operations and the person who collected and processed the original data. He is also the author of the first draft and has the primary responsibility for the authenticity of the research results and data. To put it simply, you do 70% of the work, including designing experiments, running data, and writing first drafts, and one work can make your resume shine even more.

　　The first author is very valuable, especially in terms of actual contribution to academic results and academic reputation. The identity of the first author is also relatively important, especially for doctoral students. It is the standard of many universities to publish papers as the first author on the road of scientific research. Even for senior professors, publishing papers as the first author is an important condition for obtaining funds or promotion to professional titles. Corresponding author: The corresponding author of the paper is required by the journal when submitting the paper. The corresponding author will receive all notifications from the journal, including review progress, peer review comments, and review results. The corresponding author is usually an invisible boss, a mentor or project leader, who is responsible for "strategizing", applying for funds, controlling direction, and journal editing battles. After submission, all email bombardment, review comments, and even payment of page fees are under the control of the author.

　　The corresponding author should check the entire process of the paper, especially the authenticity of the content, the basis of the argument, and whether it has reached the level of publication. Therefore, the corresponding author has not only the right of authorship, but more importantly, the responsibility for this academic paper. If there is a problem with this article, the corresponding author is the first person responsible. Journals and other researchers who see the article will also go to the corresponding author directly if they want to ask questions or seek cooperation.

      03

　　If you want to mark

　　Which one is more valuable, a work or a communication?Analysis of applicant requirements from different categories of applications

　　In the review process of National Natural Science Foundation of China project applications, different categories of projects have different requirements for applicants, so the value of "first author" (first author) and "corresponding author" will also be different.

　　Youth Fund Project: This type of initial project pays more attention to the scientific research results of the applicant as the first author.Youth Fund review experts will make independent judgments and evaluations from aspects such as scientific value, innovation, social impact, and feasibility of the research plan, and will also consider the innovation potential of the applicant.The articles published by the first author reflect the applicant's independent innovation potential. When reviewing, the review experts will also consider the transformation of the results after funding and the smooth completion of the project. These abilities are often reflected through articles signed by the first author.

　　For example, a review expert mentioned an applicant for a youth fund who placed two representative works of himself as the first author in a prominent position in the application, and placed three papers in which he was the corresponding author and whose mentor was the first author at the back.This arrangement is obviously to highlight one's leading role in scientific research and to improve the competitiveness of applications.Although this strategy can be recognized by judges to some extent, experts also point out that this method may have an impact on the overall impression of the applicant, especially when scoring, part of the impression points may be reduced due to this arrangement.

　　General projects: In the review of general projects, experts will pay more attention to the articles published by the applicant as the corresponding author.This is because the size of general projects is much larger than that of youth projects, and experts also pay more attention to the scientific research team and the overall coordination ability of applicants in scientific research work.Differences in subject areas: Different subject areas also have different evaluation criteria for applicants’ scientific research contributions.In disciplines such as biochemistry, environment, and materials, the role and contribution of the corresponding author are usually considered more important, while in disciplines such as information, mathematics, and physics, the contribution of the first author may be more prominent.Analysis based on applicant’s age, level and work experience

　　Applicant’s age, level and work experience: For applicants for general programs, it is relatively normal if the applicant has achieved certain achievements in the field, or if the applicant is over 40 years old although the initial foundation is not sufficient.

　　However, if the applicant is in his 30s and his representative works in recent years have been mainly published as the corresponding author, the review experts may think that the young applicant has insufficient practical experience in the front line of scientific research, which will affect the impression score of his application.

　　If the applicant has already achieved a lot at a young age and has a certain degree of influence and his own team, then it is acceptable to focus on the corresponding author.Such applicants are more suitable to apply for outstanding youth, outstanding youth and other projects, but are less likely to apply for youth funds and general projects.

　　Analysis from practical reasons

　　In the scientific research community, there are indeed situations in which some corresponding authors become "trading items" for worldliness. For example, when some senior experts lack papers for title evaluation, someone may provide the position of the corresponding author to ensure that the results are published and satisfy their superiors. This phenomenon exists in academia both at home and abroad. Influence of platform and team: Some applicants graduated from excellent teams, but the school platform where they worked is not as good as the school platform during doctoral studies. At this time, listing the original supervisor as the corresponding author can not only increase the publication rate of the paper, but also maintain contact with the original supervisor and make them satisfied. This approach is relatively common in reality. To sum up, from a realistic perspective, the corresponding author may be given more value during the review process, especially for those applicants who play leadership and coordination roles in the scientific research team. However, this value is also affected by many factors such as the applicant’s age, scientific research experience, platform and team situation. Therefore, during the review process, experts will comprehensively consider these factors to judge the value of "one work" and "communication". You can also make adjustments in the actual process based on the above analysis.