Co-corresponding author convention

The co-corresponding author convention is the practice of designating two or more authors as jointly corresponding on a published work, each taking on the responsibilities normally held by a single corresponding author: post-publication communication, editorial liaison, and fielding queries or data requests about the work. Co-corresponding authors are typically marked with a shared symbol (commonly an asterisk or dagger) in the byline, alongside a note identifying them as jointly corresponding.

Why it exists

Co-corresponding designation is most often used where a paper genuinely has more than one lead point of contact who can answer for the work — commonly a multi-site collaboration where each participating institution or laboratory has its own lead investigator, or a paper with co-first authors where the corresponding role is split to mirror that shared leadership. It signals, in the author list itself, that responsibility for the work’s integrity and follow-up is genuinely shared rather than concentrated in one person, which matters for readers, editors, and institutions assessing contribution.

What journals and standards actually say

The ICMJE Recommendations do not explicitly address whether corresponding-author responsibility can be split between two or more people — the guidance is silent on the specific point, neither prohibiting nor endorsing multiple corresponding authors. In practice, journal policy fills the gap: PLOS journals’ submission guidelines state directly that while only one corresponding author can be designated in the submission system, this does not restrict the number of corresponding authors that may be listed on the published article. Other publishers explicitly permit co-corresponding designation on a case-by-case basis, sometimes with a cap on how many authors may hold the role. Because practice varies by venue, authors intending to designate co-corresponding authors should confirm the target journal’s specific policy before submission rather than assuming it is universally permitted.

What distinguishes this term from bare corresponding authorship

This entry covers the convention of splitting the corresponding-author role across multiple people specifically — for what the corresponding-author role itself entails when held by one person, see Corresponding author and Corresponding Author Responsibilities: What ICMJE Actually Requires. For how corresponding authorship compares to other named roles, see the comparison pages Corresponding Author vs. First Author and Senior Author vs. Corresponding Author.

Good practice and common pitfalls

Granting co-corresponding status to a junior author who lacks the standing, contact continuity, or capacity to actually handle post-publication data requests and editorial queries — extended as a courtesy rather than a functional designation — is a documented poor practice: it dilutes the practical value of the role without the accountability the role is meant to provide. Each co-corresponding author should be someone genuinely able and expected to respond to queries about the work for as long as the journal’s data-availability and correction policies require.

References

• PLOS submission guidelines, journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.
• ICMJE Recommendations, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors, icmje.org.