Co-first author on a top journal or sole first author on a lesser journal?

Hi all,

I'm preparing to submit my first manuscript hopefully sometime in the next few months, and have an authorship-related question for you guys. As it stands, combining my data with that of a postdoc in my lab will make the paper the strongest it can be (thus have the best chance at getting in Science/Nature type journal), but that will most likely result in co-authorships (stars next to our names) with mine being the second author listed. I will then use the rest of my data for a subsequent paper with me being the sole first author, but probably in a lesser journal (PNAS or less). If we hold off and submit separately, we will each need to get more data. There's also the fear of getting scooped while we gather those extra data.

This will be my first 1st authorship paper, so obviously I'm excited about it. At this point, I'm not sure how much research I will do throughout my career. What I do know is I would definitely like to do a residency, and then decide from there.

So my question is, should I aim for the top journal and be ok with the second co-authorship? Or, should I hold off and be a sole first author. I guess alternatively, I can try to get the first co-authorship, though I'm not sure how likely that will be.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks for everyone who responded - I'm definitely leaning toward the co-first authorship. Vader in response to your question, I'm currently in my 3rd year PhD and plan to take another year, though I would like to wrap things up by next winter to give me few months before returning to med school.

I understand that there's no such thing as getting into Science/Nature with certainty, but as I mentioned combining the data will give us the best crack at it. I've definitely been trying to keep a realistic perspective during this whole process. I plan on pushing hard to crank out as much data as possible in the next few months, and hopefully things will play out ok.

Just thought I'd give you guys an update on this situation.

Last week, I sat down with my PI to draft out the outline for the manuscript that would include combined data. I've since then finished a very rough first draft for the manuscript. It turns out that 1/2 of the figures will come directly from my data/ideas, 1/4 from the postdoc, and 1/4 from a collaborator's lab. The postdoc generated lines of transgenic animal that made his studies possible thus provide in vivo data, and I performed all the biochemical studies (which ironically were done prior to the completion of the transgenic studies and directly impacted the types of experiments performed on these transgenics). I pointed out to my PI that I would be providing the majority of the data, and should be considered to be the first of the co-firsts. He saw my point, but thought that the postdoc would not agree to be a co-first unless he is listed first.

Anyway, so the three of us sat down and had a meeting to discuss authorships. As expected, the postdoc said if he's not listed first then he rather submit separately to lesser journals. This is he's 3rd or 4th postdoc, and he really needed first authorships to advance his career. I didn't want the situation to get ugly, and I truly believed that we would have a good shot at top journals if combining the data, so I said I would be ok with being the 2nd co-first.

So at the end of the day, we decided to do this... We will submit combinedly with me being the 2nd co-first to Science/Nature. If that gets reviewed, great, we will then address reviewers comments etc. If it gets rejected, then we will divide the papers and submit separately with us being sole first authors.

I was just reading a post in the Student Researh forum, where the poster said he/she is one of 4 co-first authors, so I guess these things really are becoming more common these days. But the level of politics involved in research is indeed intriguing. I just hope I did the right thing...

Thanks for all your comments!