how to cite acknowledgement

maybe a dumb question, but if I have an acknowledgement on a paper that i'm not an author on, do I put it on my CV? in a new section or..how does that work?

Most people would not list this on a CV. It just kind of falls below the threshold of mentionability. You definitely want to avoid seeming like you are trying to pass off an acknowledgement as a co-authorship. The fact that you worked in the lab would be included in your research experience section, and you could provide a one-liner on the type of work you did there ("performed data analysis for project on blueberry extract"); if an interviewer asked, you could mention that your work was acknowledged in a paper, but this just invites questions on why you weren't listed as a co-author.

Ombret said:

Most people would not list this on a CV. It just kind of falls below the threshold of mentionability. You definitely want to avoid seeming like you are trying to pass off an acknowledgement as a co-authorship. The fact that you worked in the lab would be included in your research experience section, and you could provide a one-liner on the type of work you did there ("performed data analysis for project on blueberry extract"); if an interviewer asked, you could mention that your work was acknowledged in a paper, but this just invites questions on why you weren't listed as a co-author.

Click to expand...

ok cool. as a young buck i just dont have much on there, but what you said echoes my gut feeling but saddens my pride =D

I've included acknowledgments on my CV. After being advised by my PI that I should do so. Under publications I used a separate heading for co-author versus technical acknowledgments. For a graduate student, post-doc, etc., I could see how this might be frowned upon. But for a undergrad or PRA, I think it's fine, as did my PI. It shows that 1) the lab you work in is productive and 2) You have contributed to the work.

For the life of me I cannot understand why authors (and it's usually the authors, not so much the journals) are so stingy that they refuse to include someone who technically contributed to the work - even substantially so - as a later co-author. How does it take away from anyone?

My lab has provided reagents/antibodies/technique training to people in a number of other labs and this has then been used for publication, but my PI and/or the lab person (grad student/postdoc) involved gets just an acknowledgement at best or no mention at all.

Why do authors feel that adding someone else whose contribution was essential - however "technical" (I would say material or even substantial) it may have been - to the paper, would somehow diminish the accomplishment of the first, second, last, etc. authors?

It's getting to be downright wrong.

I worked for someone whose policy was that to get authorship, that person had to have contributed a minimum of 10% of the total work. Most people I've worked with seem to think that any author should require some intellectual contribution, if only direct interpretation of results. As a result I've had some of my work published where my name was not attached- eg a crystal structure in a large paper where the structure was <<10% of the work described. Anything published with my name on it was significantly mine.

Personally I disagree with you; I don't think anyone should get authorship for providing another lab with reagents. This is because an authorship implies intellectual responsibility as well (eg; the coauthors agree with the contents and endorse the results found; you need to be involved past a certain degree to be able to do that).

But I don't dictate who gets to be coauthor, at least not for a while from now.

I can understand the logic on both sides. My PI's policy has always been that as long my name is first and his is last, he doesn't care how many other names are in between. If someone provides reagents that are unique and unavailable elsewhere, we end up adding them as coauthors. It seems only fair to do so. I think the rule in my head is - if you provide data for any of the panels in the main text or you provide a critical reagent that was unavailable commercially, you should get the opportunity to be a coauthor.

The problem with adding tons of coauthors to a paper is that it's not fair for the middle authors. Personally, I've declined to be a coauthor on a paper that I spent literally 20 minutes taking microscope pictures for. It didn't seem fair to claim credit for a quicky experiment like that when the other coauthors spent months slaving away creating cell lines and constructs.

I think one thing that helps a lot during collaborations is a frank discussion on who gets what credit on the paper. In my experience, it works really well when you can get everyone to sit down early in a project and say: "Okay, person X is doing the key experiments so he'll be first, then Y, then Z for providing cells, etc..."

Miz, I think that's harsh that you didn't get credit for a crystal structure. That's a ton of work - it sucks that you didn't get a coauthorship for that. I'd be kind of upset - you're a better person than I am!