Research: Which author should I be for this publication?

[onb2014]

So I'm just wondering what's the "standard" placement of authorship for this kind of work. The study is a straight clinical research study, with no basic science/bench component. I was not involved in data collection, design, or initial statistical analysis of the study, but was tasked to write pretty much the entire manuscript from scratch (was given an abstract to start). Further, I had to re-do some of the statistical analysis.

Right now there are already 11 authors listed on the paper (it really doesn't need that many -- they pretty much just listed everyone who's in this major university research group, its not some multi-center trial), so when I brought up the issue of where I should put myself, the 1st author (cards PD) initially said "you didn't put yourself in?", and when I suggested I put myself as 3rd author, he paused and said, "I'll think about it and get back to you".

The question is, for the work I did on this study, which author should I be for publication? Second, and probably of less interest to all of you, is how should I frame this in a LOI to waitlisted schools? It's obviously not published, or even submitted yet, but since my app's major weakness is lack of research, I want them to know about this.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ReptarBar]

well we submitted a paper a month or two ago (4 authors; 3 docs and me), and i was second author. i half-devised the study, collected all data, did all the stats, and wrote the entire paper. the first author is the doc who proposed the study (i changed it up a bit), and the 3/4 authors are docs who worked on the patients but nothing else.

so i think you should be in the spot that is right after the doctor(s) who proposed the idea...3rd seems good.

 

[jbz24]

You should be after the people who did the initial design study, IRB approval, data collection, and statistical analysis, but before the people who were just there for support and consultation. If that's 3rd, 5th, or 10th author, that's where you should be.

 

[armybound]

You sound like first author to me.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Allow Jorge Cham to deconstruct this for you:

 

[bamtuba]

You should be after the people who did the initial design study, IRB approval, data collection, and statistical analysis, but before the people who were just there for support and consultation. If that's 3rd, 5th, or 10th author, that's where you should be.

Pretty much agree with this.

As far as Armybound's comment, yes, you sound like the first author...of the manuscript itself (just in case you didn't hear the sarcasm from that end of the room...).

Anyhow, I had to do a similar task as you for a paper and I was fourth (and last) author.

The general rule (in my mind anyhow) should be that you are listed in terms of intellectual contribution of the study itself (then listed in order of which contributors actually did most of the work), followed by the grunt work of the study itself, followed by intellectual contribution to the story being told in the manuscript (ie. what you are calling the abstract from which you started), followed by those that contributed (ie. you or others who may have assisted with techniques, immunohistochemistry and the like, and then only if there was not an acknowledgments section of the paper for people who did this type of work).

3rd author is likely way too high up on the totem pole from what you are describing, but if there are 7 or 8 political authors (you know, the people higher up in the food chain than the PI running the experiment who are placed in authorship because its the politically correct thing to do) then I could see you as 3rd author.

 

[armybound]

As far as Armybound's comment, yes, you sound like the first author...of the manuscript itself (just in case you didn't hear the sarcasm from that end of the room...).

Anyhow, I had to do a similar task as you for a paper and I was fourth (and last) author.

there's a reason why it's called first author, not first researcher.

if you did all of the work writing and researching the manuscript, running data analysis, etc, and settled for fourth author, you were taken advantage of.

 

[Tiktaalik]

there's a reason why it's called first author, not first researcher.

if you did all of the work writing and researching the manuscript, running data analysis, etc, and settled for fourth author, you were taken advantage of.

It's not fair, certainly, but it's how it works.

 

[Narmerguy]

there's a reason why it's called first author, not first researcher.

if you did all of the work writing and researching the manuscript, running data analysis, etc, and settled for fourth author, you were taken advantage of.

True, but given the typical culture surrounding these sorts of things, that's why undergrads with first author papers are so rare. 3rd sounds like a typical spot given to an undergrad, though I certainly agree that I feel the OP should be 1st author. It's kind of BS but it be what it be.

 

[drizzt3117]

I think 3rd author seems more than generous, given that you weren't really involved in the research.

 

[shiftingmirage]

I always thought the guy that wrote it went first, but I also don't think it's worth fighting over. Take whatever spot ya get, and move on. You said you were on a waitlist, does that mean you aren't accepted yet? You may need the PI to help get you a job or write another LOR if you don't get in this year (hope you do). Point is - don't burn a bridge over this. And IMO - a paper that has yet to be submitted let alone accepted is not really update worthy. Lots of papers are written, submitted, and rejected. If you got put on the waitlist it's not your app that's the problem, it's your interview. Schools don't interview people unless they are content with the app. If you want to do a LOI, then convey what was missing in the interview.

 

[NYDOC112]

I was made first author on a published research paper. I designed the research, Performed all of the laboratory tests, analyzed all of the lab teats, worked on the research itself for 3 years, did all of the statistical analyses of the research, and wrote the entire paper.

 

[JJMrK]

You should be after the people who did the initial design study, IRB approval, data collection, and statistical analysis, but before the people who were just there for support and consultation. If that's 3rd, 5th, or 10th author, that's where you should be.

Agreed. If you were only involved in writing, 3rd is too high with that many authors involved. Somewhere around 6th or 7th is probably reasonable, but it's going to vary.

 

[JJMrK]

I always thought the guy that wrote it went first, but I also don't think it's worth fighting over. Take whatever spot ya get, and move on. You said you were on a waitlist, does that mean you aren't accepted yet? You may need the PI to help get you a job or write another LOR if you don't get in this year (hope you do). Point is - don't burn a bridge over this. And IMO - a paper that has yet to be submitted let alone accepted is not really update worthy. Lots of papers are written, submitted, and rejected. If you got put on the waitlist it's not your app that's the problem, it's your interview. Schools don't interview people unless they are content with the app. If you want to do a LOI, then convey what was missing in the interview.

Generally, that's not how it goes.

 

[armybound]

Agreed. If you were only involved in writing, 3rd is too high with that many authors involved. Somewhere around 6th or 7th is probably reasonable, but it's going to vary.

I'd say it depends on the group and what the environment is like at that place.

Before starting med school I was a part of the design and implementation of a lot of research-worthy projects, most of which had the potential of being published. Typically the way it worked in our group was if you wrote it up, regardless of your position in the design & implementation, you were first author.

One time I received an email from someone asking me how I had written this particular program because they were analyzing my data and writing it up. This was a person I had never heard of, working in a group that wasn't a part of the design or implementation of the program, but decided to grab my data and publish it. They weren't even planning on putting my group on the publication... and that was data we were planning on publishing ourselves.

 

[JJMrK]

I'd say it depends on the group and what the environment is like at that place.

Yeah, that's why I said I agree with this:

You should be after the people who did the initial design study, IRB approval, data collection, and statistical analysis, but before the people who were just there for support and consultation. If that's 3rd, 5th, or 10th author, that's where you should be.

Before starting med school I was a part of the design and implementation of a lot of research-worthy projects, most of which had the potential of being published. Typically the way it worked in our group was if you wrote it up, regardless of your position in the design & implementation, you were first author.

One time I received an email from someone asking me how I had written this particular program because they were analyzing my data and writing it up. This was a person I had never heard of, working in a group that wasn't a part of the design or implementation of the program, but decided to grab my data and publish it. They weren't even planning on putting my group on the publication... and that was data we were planning on publishing ourselves.

Just curious, how did they even have access to your data?

 

[armybound]

It was all patient/intervention data that's stored in the electronic medical records and order entry databases that are open to most groups involved in using any of the electronic systems at that hospital.

 

[bamtuba]

there's a reason why it's called first author, not first researcher.

if you did all of the work writing and researching the manuscript, running data analysis, etc, and settled for fourth author, you were taken advantage of.

Wow, you were really serious?

Writing a paper and making a story of evidence can be completely different things. And what the OP described (being given an abstract and doing little more than putting the thoughts of others into words) is not first author material.

Some people will have to design, perform, and analyze their own experiments to get a 1,2, or 3 authorship.

Others are more fortunate and have a PI that wants them to succeed. Such a PI may say "hey, write our paper, or just contribute, and we'll make you an author." Such cases are not the norm (I hope), but it happens.

 

[bamtuba]

Before starting med school I was a part of the design and implementation of a lot of research-worthy projects, most of which had the potential of being published. Typically the way it worked in our group was if you wrote it up, regardless of your position in the design & implementation, you were first author.

You were very lucky.

Nothing wrong with being lucky though.

 

[armybound]

Wow, you were really serious?

Writing a paper and making a story of evidence can be completely different things. And what the OP described (being given an abstract and doing little more than putting the thoughts of others into words) is not first author material.

Some people will have to design, perform, and analyze their own experiments to get a 1,2, or 3 authorship.

Others are more fortunate and have a PI that wants them to succeed. Such a PI may say "hey, write our paper, or just contribute, and we'll make you an author." Such cases are not the norm (I hope), but it happens.

Why would I not be serious? The guy asked for opinions and I gave him mine. There's obviously no hard and fast rule or this thread wouldn't have so many different answers in it.

Though in thinking about it more, I agree that first author is not the right spot for him.

You were very lucky.

Nothing wrong with being lucky though.

I don't know if it's lucky to work with people who don't take advantage of you. I'd hope that would be fairly normal.

 

[krs881]

This is a tricky question that really should be more straightforward, except for all the politics and personality and messiness typically involved in assigning authorship (the cartoon above pretty well reflects reality in many cases!). That being said, I think that any undergrad student should be excited at the opportunity to be involved in research at the level that they would be given authorship, or at the chance to learn how to write a scientific paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PIs should feel an ethical pull to assign authorship fairly, but premeds also don't need to be in this race to the top to accumulate publications or first authorship. Do it for the right reasons. If you learn from the experience (including the experience of being shafted in authorship assignment!), those lessons learned will be apparent in the many ways you communicate to AdComms including PS and interview. Authorship order is not the only way to get that across.

However, to respond to the question, my understanding has always been that if you are the primary person writing the manuscript in question, regardless of your role in design, data collection and analysis, you should be first or second author. The only time I drafted a manuscript and was subsequently listed third, it was because the first two names listed were actually "co first authors" -- my PI literally put asterisks and a note next to their names, since they had both been equally instrumental in design and data collection, in order to maintain me as second author, since I wrote the paper. (This was because only one paper was coming out of the study. Remember that typically there are multiple papers resulting from a single study, so the fact that an undergrad research assistant is first or second author on one does not preclude the postdoc or whoever from being first or second on another.) The senior PI is always last, a junior or co-PI may be second to last. Sorry to burst the bubbles of 3rd and 4th and so on authors out there, but no one outside your own research group pays attention to the names in the middle, it is just a way of internally giving credit where it is due. That being said, I imagine that med school AdComms are savy enough to understand that even if you are somewhere in the middle, you contributed significantly enough to the study for a senior investigator to include you as author, and therefor the AdComs would also consider that contribution as serious.

 

[drizzt3117]

I think a lot of time it has to do with the perspective of the pi. In our lab, people are first author if they came up with the project and did a good chunk of the actual research. I've completely written a paper in which I've been involved with the research and been 2nd author. I've also been 2nd author on papers in which I wasn't involved with too much at all, it just depends in most cases.

 

[Freezer]

The "Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association," AKA the bible for almost any scientific publication, has a whole section devoted to appropriate authorship ranking... as i dont know what others did on your project, I dont know what the APA would say about your ranking... you should look it up...

 

[sustentacular]

so when I brought up the issue of where I should put myself, the 1st author (cards PD) initially said "you didn't put yourself in?", and when I suggested I put myself as 3rd author, he paused and said, "I'll think about it and get back to you".

What ever this guy says is where you're going to be.. why get worked up about what you/others think you should be? It may just make you mad/disappointed in the end.

 

[bamtuba]

Why would I not be serious? The guy asked for opinions and I gave him mine. There's obviously no hard and fast rule or this thread wouldn't have so many different answers in it.

Though in thinking about it more, I agree that first author is not the right spot for him.

I don't know if it's lucky to work with people who don't take advantage of you. I'd hope that would be fairly normal.

I just thought you were being sarcastic with the first post; I have nothing against your experiences or what you are telling the OP.

I think it really just has a LOT to do with the political structure of the lab/department in which the research is being done.

The difference as I see it here is that where I am right now no PI would ever let someone write the manuscript if they were not heavily involved intellectually with the research itself. So in my case this would rarely, if ever, come up as an issue.

The way you described your research implies that you contributed by putting a story together from already available data.

The OP described a situation whereby a story was told to him/her and he/she wrote it out. If this is the case, then the OP was merely a scribe and should be noted appropriately, but the PI will undoubtedly make that decision as they see fit.