I don't mind one way or another. Since @aseyboldt was asking, let me lay out the standard conventions. The "first authors" on the list do the lion's share of the research and/or writing. The "middle authors" make contributions worthy of going on the paper. The "last authors" are the lab directors/supervisors. In enormous physics or bio lab projects, there can be a dozen first authors and hundreds of middle authors. The very first author gets a boost in name recognition because the paper will often be cited as (First Author et al. year) in long citation format. The most senior author usually gets a boost in name recognition because they're usually the best known author and thus easier for people to remember.
In bio, they often include a description of what each author contributed. I really liked the way the transformers paper just randomized the author order and then included a short note on what each author contributed.
I don't mind one way or another. Since @aseyboldt was asking, let me lay out the standard conventions. The "first authors" on the list do the lion's share of the research and/or writing. The "middle authors" make contributions worthy of going on the paper. The "last authors" are the lab directors/supervisors. In enormous physics or bio lab projects, there can be a dozen first authors and hundreds of middle authors. The very first author gets a boost in name recognition because the paper will often be cited as (First Author et al. year) in long citation format. The most senior author usually gets a boost in name recognition because they're usually the best known author and thus easier for people to remember.
In bio, they often include a description of what each author contributed. I really liked the way the transformers paper just randomized the author order and then included a short note on what each author contributed.