Shared first authorship (Shau) has become common practice across research disciplines. However, it remains unclear whether Shau affects attributed academic career success. We investigate the relevance of author order with a specific focus on Shau in the context of an academic selection process. Specifically, we conducted an experimental vignette study among one hundred seventy-seven academics and invited participants to evaluate the CV of a fictitious applicant. We manipulated the peer-reviewed publication section of the CV where the applicant was either the sole first author, second author, had Shau and was listed first, or had Shau and was listed second. Using seven criteria of academic career evaluation (e.g., attributed competence), results of MANOVA showed that first and Shau authors were similarly evaluated. Contrary to concerns that Shau could dilute the credit attributed to the first-named author, our findings indicate that both the first and second named Shau authors receive full credit without disadvantaging each other’s attribution of success. Overall, we found no negative but even positive effects of Shau on attributed career success. We further discuss the practice and (mis)use of Shau itself as well as the need to evaluate applicants for academic positions holistically, going beyond the number of (shared) first authorships. However, it remains unclear whether Shau affects attributed academic career success. We investigate the relevance of author order with a specific focus on Shau in the context of an academic selection process. Specifically, we conducted an experimental vignette study among one hundred seventy-seven academics and invited participants to evaluate the CV of a fictitious applicant. We manipulated the peer-reviewed publication section of the CV where the applicant was either the sole first author, second author, had Shau and was listed first, or had Shau and was listed second. So, should Author 2, the loser of the game, be disappointed? If this author is concerned about their career, that should be the case—at least according to various statements: scholars have claimed, albeit without strong empirical evidence, that the order of authorship and in particular the first author position is important for academic career evaluation, including promotions and allocation of grants (e.g., Aakhus et al., 2018 ; Corrêa et al., 2017 ; Kim & Diesner, 2015 ). This is attributed to the common convention that whoever is listed first has contributed the most to the paper (Bhandari et al., 2004 ), although there are variations in specific disciplines where great value is also assigned to the last author position, which is then often held by the project leader, supervisor, or senior researcher (Fox et al., 2018 ; Teixeira Da Silva, 2021 ). Therefore, we aim to experimentally investigate the assumption that first, second, and shared authorship affects the perception of academic success. Conceptual backgrodund on authorship order and career evaluattion The impact of authorship order on perceived academic success Our subsequently developed hypotheses are based on the conceptual and empirical findings of previous research, which we apply to our case of academic career evaluation. Scholars have shown that early career researchers' productivity and likelihood of obtaining a new position are positively related to, for example, the productivity of their PhD advisor (e.g., Lee, 2024 ; Williamson & Cable, 2003 ) and the social capital of their department (Hadani et al., 2012 ) and their field (e.g., Rotolo & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2013 ). In addition, Zauner et al. In this case, the often claimed advantages of Shau to reduce conflicts among authors in determining the order of authorship can be undermined (Baum et al., 2022 ; Teixeira Da Silva, 2021 ). In line with these critical voices, we hypothesize Footnote 2 : H4 (“first of the firsts even in Shau”): An applicant who is listed first as Shau author in the three top publications of their CV is perceived as more successful compared to an applicant who is listed second as Shau author in these publications. Criteria for academic career evaluation Taken together, with this paper we seek to answer the question of whether AUTHOR 2, the loser of the game, must be disappointed or, in other words, whether the author order matters for academic career evaluation in the case of Shau. Career research distinguishes between objective (e.g., promotion) and subjective (e.g., career satisfaction) academic career success (Rubio et al., 2011 ; Spurk et al., 2015 ; Sutherland, 2017 ). Since we are interested in the evaluation of career success by selection committees, the career success subjectively perceived by the applicant does not play a role in our study. Second, we want to stress that the authorship order and whether or not authorship is shared is only one possible indicator of academic success. We further would like to clarify that we neither argue that this is the most relevant criterion nor one that necessarily indicates academic quality and Solutions for crediting authors more visibly, transparently, and free of bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62 (4), 1605–1620. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12569 Article Google Scholar Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M., & Arthur, M. (2018). Intelligent career success: The case of distinguished academics. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107 , 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.007 Article Google Scholar Bhandari, M., Busse, J. W., Kulkarni, A. V., Devereaux, P. J., Leece, P., & Guyatt, G. H. (2004). Interpreting authorship order and corresponding authorship. Epidemiology, 15 (1), 125–126. Copy shareable link to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Keywords Shared first authorship Academic career evaluation Scientific publication Experimental vignette study Profiles Julian Decius View author profile Miriam Schilbach View author profile Advertisement