<p>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.</p>