Of course I do. When it comes to the evaluation of professional titles, the function of "* * * 1" is weakened. After all, the "purity" of scientific research achievements of senior titles is also an important measure. In the judging rules, the HR departments of some top universities explicitly require the first author to recognize only 1 person, and two people cannot enjoy the bonus points of the first author at the same time, which means that "* * * one" is invalid.

Having said that, how should we treat * * * as the first author and how to avoid stumbling on "* * * 1"? From the perspective of defending the fruits of one's own labor, one should be cautious in signing, and a work should never be easily given to others. If it is done by many people, and you are sure that you are the highest contributor, * * * the same work should also strive for the front position, and resources should not be replaced at will. From the point of view of safeguarding others' labor achievements, if the partner does make a direct contribution to the article, he must truthfully fill in the necessary items of the first author. After the just-concluded review meeting of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, an expert specially pointed out: * * * If the first author doesn't mark it, or changes the order without authorization, no matter how advanced the content is, it will be judged directly. This is an important manifestation of academic integrity, which is related to the bottom line and ethics. Therefore, when signing, it should be true, objective and checked repeatedly, and researchers who have made direct contributions are listed among them. This is the "hidden rule" in academic circles. And if you simply want to make achievements, then the "hidden rules" are likely to leave you nowhere to hide and ruin your future.