First author and the corresponding author are supposed to have more recognition in terms of contribution than simply to be listed as one of the co-author of a multiple-authorship paper. So, the first and the corresponding authors tend to promote their institutional affiliation directly or indirectly helping them both in terms of name/fame and grant opportunities. For example, universities that excel in scientific publications in top journals can complete to be listed in the top 100–200 global rank ( https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk ). Is the reason for having two corresponding authors so that more than one institution can be glamorized instantly?
The ethical concept of the co-corresponding authorship is not at all clear. So I wonder, is it scientifically sensible and ethical to have two corresponding authors in a single paper? The term certainly confuses readers since it is not clear who is actually responsible for communication. In fact, a 2-way communication between editorial staff and corresponding author may increase efficiency. But, when it is stretched to 3-ways, it may only confuse information transfer and accountability. Isn’t it?