Author Order: 2nd vs. Last??

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hi,

I am a medical student and the attending I am working on a review paper with just told me that he wants to be 1st author (although I wrote the paper). He said I can now either be 2nd or last...whichever I choose (there are only 3 authors total) I know conventionally PI's are last...and I really don't want to question the attending but I was wondering which position would be look best for me?

Thanks!!

My guess would be 2nd, since that will mean you had more involvement than whoever is listed 3rd/last.

The last is usually the PI, who receives the most credit. The first one is usually the one who has done the most work. If you have done the most work, I think you deserve to be the 1st author.

Why does your lab partner want to be the 1st one? Maybe having a little chat with him/her may help to figure this out.

Originally Posted by Sophia88

Hi,

I am a medical student and the attending I am working on a review paper with just told me that he wants to be 1st author (although I wrote the paper). He said I can now either be 2nd or last...whichever I choose (there are only 3 authors total) I know conventionally PI's are last...and I really don't want to question the attending but I was wondering which position would be look best for me?

Thanks!!

Being co-first authors is an option as well, check with the journal that you will be publishing in.

this is a review paper though. does it really matter?

Originally Posted by Sophia88

Hi,

I am a medical student and the attending I am working on a review paper with just told me that he wants to be 1st author (although I wrote the paper). He said I can now either be 2nd or last...whichever I choose (there are only 3 authors total) I know conventionally PI's are last...and I really don't want to question the attending but I was wondering which position would be look best for me?

Thanks!!

Last position is traditionally reserved for senior author. One cannot credibly be "senior author" on a paper where you are the most junior person involved, and it is a little disingenuous for your attending to leave the "choice" up to you.

If first author is out of the question, take second author.

Alternatively, if there is still yet a lot of work to be done on the paper, then quit -- tell him to write it himself -- and then go find a less paper-grubby attending who will actually be a decent mentor.

Originally Posted by atsai3

Alternatively, if there is still yet a lot of work to be done on the paper, then quit -- tell him to write it himself -- and then go find a less paper-grubby attending who will actually be a decent mentor.

Originally Posted by lovanima

The last is usually the PI, who receives the most credit. The first one is usually the one who has done the most work. If you have done the most work, I think you deserve to be the 1st author.

Why does your lab partner want to be the 1st one? Maybe having a little chat with him/her may help to figure this out.

Wait are you saying that as a medical student applying for a competitive residency spot, it would look better if you were the last author (indicating you as the PI) than being the first author?

Can anybody clue in on this because I'm getting some publications out soon and would like to know. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by kaleerkalut

Wait are you saying that as a medical student applying for a competitive residency spot, it would look better if you were the last author (indicating you as the PI) than being the first author?

Can anybody clue in on this because I'm getting some publications out soon and would like to know. Thanks in advance.

Typically the last author is the one that paid for the research or mentored the creation of the manuscript.

As a review article, this is less of an issue, but should probably still follow a similar format with the most senior person at the end. In your case, I would say 1st author is the most appropriate (and as the person writing it), and tell the attending that you are most familiar with the most senior person appearing as last author. They should understand.

Originally Posted by kaleerkalut

Wait are you saying that as a medical student applying for a competitive residency spot, it would look better if you were the last author (indicating you as the PI) than being the first author?

Can anybody clue in on this because I'm getting some publications out soon and would like to know. Thanks in advance.

No.

Originally Posted by atsai3

Last position is traditionally reserved for senior author. One cannot credibly be "senior author" on a paper where you are the most junior person involved, and it is a little disingenuous for your attending to leave the "choice" up to you.

For research papers the submitting author is the PI and the his/her name goes last. Now, for review articles, the PI typically puts their name first. MDs seem particularly wedded to this convention.

So, if you're not the contact/submitting author, be happy with a 2nd author spot. Most people don't get publications.

Also, check with the journal you are submitting to. They may have very specific guidelines, such as you can't include the PI/senior just because they funded the research but didn't actually contribute to the publication scientifically.

Also, author order can vary a lot by field. I've been involved in research where alphabetical order was common. "First" author was usually indicated by an asterix, etc.

Originally Posted by soundnin

this is a review paper though. does it really matter?

Do review papers not matter?

Originally Posted by forsparta

Do review papers not matter?

Review papers are not considered 'original research'. At the faculty level, they count less towards promotion and tenure.

For an undergraduate student applying to medical school, the same hierarchy applies although it probably matters less. A review article published in a good journal will still be looked at favorably.

Originally Posted by Werg

Also, check with the journal you are submitting to. They may have very specific guidelines, such as you can't include the PI/senior just because they funded the research but didn't actually contribute to the publication scientifically.

This is generally the standard at most reputable journals, which have signed on to the ICMJE guidelines -- and this includes (among other clauses):

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.