another CV question

[applyingtograd]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

In one of the labs, I am working in we just started two projects...we haven't even started collecting data for them. Should I list them on my CV under "manuscripts in preparation" or could this be viewed as CV padding?
THANKS!

 

[doggums]

.

 

[Pragma]

This is basically why I am against manuscript in prep sections in general.

 

[applyingtograd]

okay, thanks for the info! they are off the CV. So the only paper I have listed under "in-preparation" is one that we are almost finished with and I could talk about extensively in an interview...does that seem like the right think to do??? THANKS!

 

[psychRA]

I'm a little further along (applying to postdoc), and I have one "in preparation" manuscript on my CV. The project is long done, the paper has gone through multiple drafts, and now it's just up to the first author to finish tweaking it and submit it already. I know where I stand in terms of authorship because I've been in direct communication with the other authors.

I still feel like I'm padding a little bit, tbh. I've thought about taking it off, and I probably will at some point if it doesn't get submitted, but I've sunk so many hours into it at this point that I hate the thought of not getting anything out of it.

 

[phillips101]

I had a researcher/professor help me with my CV, and she herself has read numerous PhD Clin Psych applicants, and she was the one who told me to put manuscripts in preparation on my CV. Some of them are an ongoing experiment, where the data is processed as new subjects come in. She never mentioned that it was CV padding (she had no reason to pad my CV for me). These are papers that are pretty much going to get done, but many of them haven't even started yet. WHEN they do start writing, I will be an author for sure from my involvement in the study. I also got my PI's ok on the CV to make sure she didn't feel like I was padding it, and she said it was excellent.

Is this CV padding? If it is, I wasn't aware and it sure wasn't intentional. But based on the definitions of some people in this thread, it seems like it.

Also, from my understanding, there are numerous reasons why someone may have his/her name on the paper. Whether it was the writing, the data collection, the data analysis, etc. Most papers that come out of my lab have 5+ authors on it because everyone played a unique role. Just because someone collected all the data doesn't mean they analyzed it. Heck, my PI couldn't articulate some of the methodological nuances in some papers. Her job is not to run subjects, so why would she? It seems a little harsh to say that anything a student couldn't completely articulate shouldn't go on the CV. I ran all the data analysis (statistics and otherwise) so my name was on the paper (although pretty far down the author list). Do I deserve this spot? I certainly think so. I can understand it's one thing to put an undergrad who barely did anything other than lit searches and data entry on a paper, but it's another to put a research coordinator/assistant who ran the studies, cleaned the data, and ran the statistics on it.

 

[futureapppsy2]

You could have a "current research" section that would give PIs and admissions committees an idea of what you're currently working, without potentially misrepresenting things.

 

[mewtoo]

I had a researcher/professor help me with my CV, and she herself has read numerous PhD Clin Psych applicants, and she was the one who told me to put manuscripts in preparation on my CV. Some of them are an ongoing experiment, where the data is processed as new subjects come in. She never mentioned that it was CV padding (she had no reason to pad my CV for me). These are papers that are pretty much going to get done, but many of them haven't even started yet. WHEN they do start writing, I will be an author for sure from my involvement in the study. I also got my PI's ok on the CV to make sure she didn't feel like I was padding it, and she said it was excellent.

Is this CV padding? If it is, I wasn't aware and it sure wasn't intentional. But based on the definitions of some people in this thread, it seems like it.

Also, from my understanding, there are numerous reasons why someone may have his/her name on the paper. Whether it was the writing, the data collection, the data analysis, etc. Most papers that come out of my lab have 5+ authors on it because everyone played a unique role. Just because someone collected all the data doesn't mean they analyzed it. Heck, my PI couldn't articulate some of the methodological nuances in some papers. Her job is not to run subjects, so why would she? It seems a little harsh to say that anything a student couldn't completely articulate shouldn't go on the CV. I ran all the data analysis (statistics and otherwise) so my name was on the paper (although pretty far down the author list). Do I deserve this spot? I certainly think so. I can understand it's one thing to put an undergrad who barely did anything other than lit searches and data entry on a paper, but it's another to put a research coordinator/assistant who ran the studies, cleaned the data, and ran the statistics on it.

I've always been told that if you didn't write a significant portion of a paper that it does not constitute authorship, even if you ran the data. That may just be my professors attitudes, though. They are a bit more lenient on posters, however. I was given authorship on a poster after just running participants, entering data, a bit of coding, and programming questions into the online participant pool. It was like the 5th author out of 6, but still an author. On the 2 manuscripts I've authored on, one was my experiment (so obviously I wrote the whole thing and am 1st author) and another where I've written part of the intro, results, and discussion so I'm getting 2nd author out of 3.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

You absolutely should not have a paper that hasn't even been started under 'manuscripts in prep.' That's lying because the manuscript is not in prep. It's in the design phase, data collection phase, or gee I will get around to it soon phase. What would you put as your manuscript title when you haven't done anything to start an actual manuscript?

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I've always been told that if you didn't write a significant portion of a paper that it does not constitute authorship, even if you ran the data. That may just be my professors attitudes, though. They are a bit more lenient on posters, however. I was given authorship on a poster after just running participants, entering data, a bit of coding, and programming questions into the online participant pool. It was like the 5th author out of 6, but still an author. On the 2 manuscripts I've authored on, one was my experiment (so obviously I wrote the whole thing and am 1st author) and another where I've written part of the intro, results, and discussion so I'm getting 2nd author out of 3.

This varies so much by lab. Some think that if you were in the room while the study was even mentioned you should be an author while others think you need to write at least 50% of the paper to be an author. I wish there were better standards that everyone would adopt but I don't think that will happen.

 

[Pragma]

I have no problem with a "current research" section - I just have a negative reaction whenever I see an "in prep" section. For really early students, I wouldn't consider it a kiss of death, but I generally consider it bad form to list papers that aren't even done yet or in the review process.

I'd consider the lab I was in during graduate school "liberal" in terms of authorship, but I never knew a person to get authorship who did not take part in at least a) some part of the actual study (e.g., data collection, analysis, etc) and b) writing at least some portion of the manuscript.

 

[Ollie123]

Actually, for better or worse, the APA guidelines are anything but explicit if you are referring to the actual "Ethical Principles" document. They make some fairly obvious things explicit (i.e. your department chair can't tack his name on everything just because' he's chair) but it leaves an enormous amount of grey - though I actually think that's better than rigid rules. The APA website has other statements on its site that are not a part of that formal document and links to still other documents on the topic from other sources. I think some additional clarity would be helpful, but there will always be a certain amount left up to the discretion of individuals in these scenarios.

Some of the above is ridiculous. I'm not sure if the 50% number was serious or not, but that's completely bonkers and out of touch with how contemporary science works. If any lab actually works like that, hope the faculty member likes being an island and doesn't mind rapidly fading into obscurity over the coming years.

Really, I think the crux of the matter is intellectual contribution. If all someone did was follow instructions, that doesn't warrant authorship in my eyes. Actually putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard?) is a very small part of the picture and far from the only thing that I think warrants authorship. If someone spends 6 months figuring out some crazy-ridiculous analysis that no one else knows how to do...I think its quite reasonable that person be given authorship even if in the end they just send some output to the person doing the writing. I can even imagine situations where writing 100% of the manuscript could be considered a relatively small contribution if the study was designed by someone else, and carried out by someone else still (a situation that's not unheard of). Writing is also a tricky issue - we tend to have one person take the lead on it, but getting support from others for various sections. I'll probably use a similar system just because I've found it generally paints a more coherent picture with a single person doing the writing and others doing the editing, but it probably depends a lot on the nature of the research and the individuals involved.

But back to the original question - if the study isn't done and there isn't an actual draft I can't see any justification for putting it down as a "manuscript".

 

[ResearchGirlie]

At all institutions I have been at, they adopt APA and AMA standards for authorship which very explicitly outline what qualifies. This is standard responsible conduct of research content (and why NIH makes you do such training when it awards grants). It's just hard to enforce on the institutional level, but journals are starting to pick up the slack with enforcement, luckily.

While all institutions I've been at adopt APA and AMA standard I know for a fact that not all labs follow it. We've also all been through the NIH research conduct trainings too so they can't claim ignorance. It's one of my biggest pet peeves. These same labs don't care at all about checking off things that supposed authors do when submitting a manuscript. Drives me crazy!

I've also refused authorship because I didn't contribute significantly to the project but then have had people try to force themselves onto my papers. No! I would have loved help along the way but running some patients for me doesn't = authorship.

 

[phillips101]

I have no problem with a "current research" section - I just have a negative reaction whenever I see an "in prep" section. For really early students, I wouldn't consider it a kiss of death, but I generally consider it bad form to list papers that aren't even done yet or in the review process.

I'd consider the lab I was in during graduate school "liberal" in terms of authorship, but I never knew a person to get authorship who did not take part in at least a) some part of the actual study (e.g., data collection, analysis, etc) and b) writing at least some portion of the manuscript.

So I've already submitted my CV's to all schools (applying to clin psych programs) with an "in prep" section as you mentioned 😳 Are there any suggestions as how to address this during interviews? I honestly wasn't trying to pad my CV. I was naive to some of the things mentioned here, and since this is my first (human subjects) lab, I didn't think to question what my seniors told me. If I had read this thread 2 weeks earlier, I would've taken that section out. I wonder if I should just be honest if this issue comes up and just tell them that I wasn't trying to pad my CV, and if necessary, I will submit another one. What a tricky process...

On a different note, I personally don't necessarily agree that only the writers should be on the paper. I've seen grad students pass of the almost all parts of their paper onto undergrads (including data collection, cleaning, analysis) and they only sit down and run a couple of t-tests or ANOVAs and write the paper (with help from others) and claim first authorship. Meanwhile, the undergrad who slaved away for hours get no recognition whatsoever. I'm not an undergrad, and this has never happened to me as an undergrad, but I just feel there is some unfairness in this scheme.

 

[Pragma]

So I've already submitted my CV's to all schools (applying to clin psych programs) with an "in prep" section as you mentioned 😳 Are there any suggestions as how to address this during interviews? I honestly wasn't trying to pad my CV. I was naive to some of the things mentioned here, and since this is my first (human subjects) lab, I didn't think to question what my seniors told me. If I had read this thread 2 weeks earlier, I would've taken that section out. I wonder if I should just be honest if this issue comes up and just tell them that I wasn't trying to pad my CV, and if necessary, I will submit another one. What a tricky process...

On a different note, I personally don't necessarily agree that only the writers should be on the paper. I've seen grad students pass of the almost all parts of their paper onto undergrads (including data collection, cleaning, analysis) and they only sit down and run a couple of t-tests or ANOVAs and write the paper (with help from others) and claim first authorship. Meanwhile, the undergrad who slaved away for hours get no recognition whatsoever. I'm not an undergrad, and this has never happened to me as an undergrad, but I just feel there is some unfairness in this scheme.

I doubt it will even come up on your interviews, and not everyone holds my view of it. I also wouldn't consider it a big deal just for graduate school admissions. The people that bother me more with it are the ones who are further along. But, at least be prepared to talk about your role in the preparation of these manuscripts that you listed and exactly where they are in the process - that may come up.

As to your issues about authorship - it's a great debate out there and certainly some mentors get most of the work done by other people. But you do need to take many things into consideration, such as ownership of the data, who obtained the funding, who obtained research approvals, who is responsible, etc.

Just because some undergrad is an RA and is learning how to enter data or do coding doesn't mean that they made much of an intellectual contribution to the project, are liable for any issues related to the project, or could have possibly conducted this project (legally) on their own. I think that "kids these days" perceive the inequity, but don't understand what goes into these projects. Now, that said - I am a person that has done both things with authorship with (only very advanced) UG RAs. We usually have a discussion, and then they take either first or second authorship if it is a smaller project. If they played a small role on a larger project, they probably aren't going to get high in the authorship order, but there could be a case for them to be authors still.

I chuckle when I imagine some student coming in to my grad school lab, working under a 5-year, $3 million grant doing data entry, demanding to be higher in the author order than the PI because they perceive that this person has been too lazy and has not put in as many hours on the paper as they had. Pfft.

 

[phillips101]

You are confusing the study with the manuscript. Again, doing manual labor on a study is not sufficient for authorship on a manuscript (but these people should be included in acknowledgements). As Ollie stated, what counts for paper authorship is intellectual contribution and not the number of hours dedicated to the study on which the paper is based. The actual design and conception of the study, ideas and theories that go into the paper, data analysis, and writing the final product are among the things that qualify someone for authorship. Data collection and cleaning alone is not sufficient.

I understand what others are saying, I'm just saying that I personally think that isn't fair. Plus, that's why you have the order of authorship. Most papers don't just have one author, many have multiple, some have upwards of 10s. I just feel like even if it's just sprinkling the person's name allll the way at the end of the authorship lineup, that's some kind of acknowledgement. From what I know, PIs/authors don't generally thank undergraduates. They don't include in their acknowledgements section "We would like to thank our undergraduates X Y and Z for entering data." So pretty much that poor undergrad gets nothing out of his work other than MAYBE a nice recommendation letter and HOPING that one day, he'll be the one writing the paper and having the next wave of laborers do the work for him.

Also with the competitiveness of grad school apps nowadays, people seem to be expected to have publications. All of my apps had a section to include publications. It doesn't seem like it's the exception, but the rule now.

I'm not suggesting every undergrad go on every paper that a lab spits out, but if there is ONE who is exceptional, who literally dedicates 20+ hours a week doing data processing, I think he/she deserve some kind of recognition beyond a recommendation letter.
Also, when I talk about "data processing" I really mean non-statistical data analysis. Things that are not included in data entry and cleaning, but doesn't include statistics (it's tough to explain without giving my lab away). Of course punching in numbers and staring at a screen to identify eye blinks shouldn't count as authorship, but actually taking that a step further that requires intensive training, skill and intellect to gather data that a paper needs does warrant some form of authorship- in my opinion.
I doubt that any one here entered grad school and independently conceptualized their experiment, ran their own statistics, and do every single step independently. Everyone had help and guidance from their PIs and/or other researchers. So by the definition above, aren't first-year graduate students "just following directions"?
Anyways, this is just for discussion purposes, and I seem to always be the minority in my opinions. 🙄

A different note, if anyone is familiar with Rutherford's experiment that pretty much helped elucidate the structure of an atom- it required TEDIOUS counting of thousands (or something like that) of traces left by atoms. Rutherfod himself SURELY did not do this, it was done by some undergrad. I don't know if he was acknowledged in the paper, but he IS known as THAT undergrad who did the grunt work. He himself later became a physicist. So

 

[Pragma]

I understand what others are saying, I'm just saying that I personally think that isn't fair. Plus, that's why you have the order of authorship. Most papers don't just have one author, many have multiple, some have upwards of 10s. I just feel like even if it's just sprinkling the person's name allll the way at the end of the authorship lineup, that's some kind of acknowledgement. From what I know, PIs/authors don't generally thank undergraduates. They don't include in their acknowledgements section "We would like to thank our undergraduates X Y and Z for entering data." So pretty much that poor undergrad gets nothing out of his work other than MAYBE a nice recommendation letter and HOPING that one day, he'll be the one writing the paper and having the next wave of laborers do the work for him.

Also with the competitiveness of grad school apps nowadays, people seem to be expected to have publications. All of my apps had a section to include publications. It doesn't seem like it's the exception, but the rule now.

I'm not suggesting every undergrad go on every paper that a lab spits out, but if there is ONE who is exceptional, who literally dedicates 20+ hours a week doing data processing, I think he/she deserve some kind of recognition beyond a recommendation letter.
Also, when I talk about "data processing" I really mean non-statistical data analysis. Things that are not included in data entry and cleaning, but doesn't include statistics (it's tough to explain without giving my lab away). Of course punching in numbers and staring at a screen to identify eye blinks shouldn't count as authorship, but actually taking that a step further that requires intensive training, skill and intellect to gather data that a paper needs does warrant some form of authorship- in my opinion.
I doubt that any one here entered grad school and independently conceptualized their experiment, ran their own statistics, and do every single step independently. Everyone had help and guidance from their PIs and/or other researchers. So by the definition above, aren't first-year graduate students "just following directions"?
Anyways, this is just for discussion purposes, and I seem to always be the minority in my opinions. 🙄

I am very much against being overly inclusive of undergraduates as authors, because it is just like grade inflation. but, I do think it is good practice when the undergraduate DOES A LOT OF THE ACTUAL INTELLECTUAL WORK.

I recall the pub I was on before graduate school, where I volunteered and was involved in data collection, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation, in addition to throwing ideas around during lab meetings. But the grad students and PI also took a lot of their time to mentor me and guide me so that I could actually make a cotnribution. I couldn't really just walk in off the street and add to the literature. I needed some training first.

Now, as an undergraduate, you may not realize preceisely how limited you are in terms of what you can contribute yet. When I work with UGs, I try to take a lot of time to go over the process of running analyses, etc. so that it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. But to have expectations of a pub - that is pretty entitled. That's not to say that you can't discuss it up front - if you want to be a co-author, I encourage everyone to discuss with with their PIs up front. I usually tell UGs what I'd expect them to do in order to be an author.

Note: This arrangement usually doesn't work out as well for me -it takes me a ton of time to appropriately mentor an UG who wants to make significant intellectual contributions to a piece that might not be prepared to make significant intellectual contributions. Assigning reading, lots of 1:1 time to go over concepts, lots of drafts to edit. Honestly, if I weren't viewing myself as an educator and looking out for that UG, I'd rather just do it myself than waste the time. So please consider that perspective when you start demanding more publications - you might be more work for your mentors than you realize.

 

[phillips101]

Maybe it's your lab, but I've never worked with anyone who didn't include RAs and other personnel in the acknowledgements. That's crappy.

Frankly, I roll my eyes when I hear RAs say they do all the work. They often don't consider the hard work that goes into writing the grant to fund the study, actually developing a theory and conceiving the study, developing sound and feasible methods, addressing IRB concerns, etc. Running subjects is pretty easy in comparison. I agree with the ethical standards of authorship and would not be comfortable putting one of my RAs on a paper that they did not intellectually contribute to in some fashion. If they want a paper for their grad school applications, then they have to contribute just like all the other authors (and I would argue exceptional RAs are able to do this). This sense of entitlement that rises out of perceived "unfairness" is unreasonable. Tacking them on to the list because they feel they are "owed" (they're getting research experience and training in exchange for their work and often RAs are paid) and "need it for grad school" are not good reasons.

I guess I must have came off as one of those RA's.
I do agree with you, that there's a sense of "entitlement" for some people (I had an undergrad talk about authorship within his first month of being at a lab). I actually always tell my PI that I want to do MORE to contribute to the paper, but it just isn't my place unfortunately. Each lab operates differently, mine seems to be.......unique. Maybe you think that JUST being an RA doesn't warrant authorship, but what about literally running ALL the statistical analyses (and understanding them) for a paper. The first author came to me to ask how to interpret this and how to run that. Half the methods section was from my work. Meanwhile, a senior researcher who only contributed his "intellectual ideas" about how to interpret certain statistics is ahead of me in the authorship list. This sounds more like a discussion about hierarchy than it is about intellectual contribution.

For a different paper that I listed "in prep" but isn't near finished, I came up with which analyses I'd have to run, will be doing all the lit searches and will be doing almost all the writing. Sure, I can see it as CV padding because I haven't started the writing process...but not forcing my way into a paper.

 

[phillips101]

I am very much against being overly inclusive of undergraduates as authors, because it is just like grade inflation. but, I do think it is good practice when the undergraduate DOES A LOT OF THE ACTUAL INTELLECTUAL WORK.

I recall the pub I was on before graduate school, where I volunteered and was involved in data collection, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation, in addition to throwing ideas around during lab meetings. But the grad students and PI also took a lot of their time to mentor me and guide me so that I could actually make a cotnribution. I couldn't really just walk in off the street and add to the literature. I needed some training first.

Now, as an undergraduate, you may not realize preceisely how limited you are in terms of what you can contribute yet. When I work with UGs, I try to take a lot of time to go over the process of running analyses, etc. so that it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. But to have expectations of a pub - that is pretty entitled. That's not to say that you can't discuss it up front - if you want to be a co-author, I encourage everyone to discuss with with their PIs up front. I usually tell UGs what I'd expect them to do in order to be an author.

Note: This arrangement usually doesn't work out as well for me -it takes me a ton of time to appropriately mentor an UG who wants to make significant intellectual contributions to a piece that might not be prepared to make significant intellectual contributions. Assigning reading, lots of 1:1 time to go over concepts, lots of drafts to edit. Honestly, if I weren't viewing myself as an educator and looking out for that UG, I'd rather just do it myself than waste the time. So please consider that perspective when you start demanding more publications - you might be more work for your mentors than you realize.

1) I am not an undergrad. I manage undergrads.
2) I am not demanding more publications. I said I don't think it's fair that some people who are at the bottom of the totem pole not get their recognition for the work they put in. And no, that does not include me. At this point, I am leaving my lab soon and have already submitted my applications. I have 3 months until possibly getting an interview. No papers are going to happen in 3 months. I'm trying to voice my opinion for all those undergrads who slave away thinking they will get SOMETHING and then being told "your 40 hours a week volunteer work won't get you anything other than a recommendation letter because you are too low down the totem pole to understand our work." Academia starts to feel like a pyramid scheme at a certain point...

 

[phillips101]

It sounds like the things you have contributed are reasonable for authorship (which is a far cry from what you were arguing earlier about data collection being enough). Also, intellectual ideas carry a lot more weight than just manhours on a publication and justifiably those that contribute the greatest intellectual content should be higher in the order. They call them "authors" after all, not "laborers" 😉

HAHA can't argue with the system.

I think this thread has deviated enough from its original post.

Also: People, please I am NOT trying to start a fight or argument or overthrow the current ...authorship system.... Once people start attacking others personally (which I see coming at this rate), that just becomes an immature bicker. These are my opinions, which I suppose is okay to voice on an online forum. I seem to be at a "special" lab with "special" systems. It's eye opening to hear (or read) some of these comments.

 

[Pragma]

1) I am not an undergrad. I manage undergrads.
2) I am not demanding more publications. I said I don't think it's fair that some people who are at the bottom of the totem pole not get their recognition for the work they put in. And no, that does not include me. At this point, I am leaving my lab soon and have already submitted my applications. I have 3 months until possibly getting an interview. No papers are going to happen in 3 months. I'm trying to voice my opinion for all those undergrads who slave away thinking they will get SOMETHING and then being told "your 40 hours a week volunteer work won't get you anything other than a recommendation letter because you are too low down the totem pole to understand our work." Academia starts to feel like a pyramid scheme at a certain point...

1) What I said applies to post-baccalaureate RAs working in labs and are trying to get into graduate school.
2) Your lab sounds messed up. Including acknowledgements and other opportunities is important in most places.

Really, I usually suggest that folks start with a poster if they are coming in "to get research experience." But I had some highly motivated folks who wanted to do their own small studies, and that was great (it took up a lot of my time, but was a somewhat worthwhile activity). That required guidance on IRBs and making responses, teaching how to do stats and research design, troubleshooting data collection issues, helping with setting up databases, helping with qualitative coding, and doing a lot of the writing. All along the way, these highly intellegient RAs needed guidance and we met 1:1 weekly for supervision. What did I earn? Second author on one paper. If I was selfish, I would have spent my time doing other stuff. But I think it is good citizenship as a researcher, and hopefully these (now grad students) will model this behavior for RAs they supervise.

 

[phillips101]

I think you're missing that actually RAs in all forms get a lot in the form of experience and on the job training (and good mentorship in a many cases) from their work. It's entitlement to suggest that the only acceptable "payback" is a publication.

No it's not a payback. It's a matter of work input: payback. If an RA or undergrad or ANYONE for that matter puts in enough work to be an author, they should be an author. Just because someone is getting paid or getting experience doesn't mean that's ALL they deserve. If an RA comes in and does only what's told and nothing else, then yes, it is entitlement to feel like they should get authorship. If an RA (or undergrad or grad or whatever) goes way above and beyond and actually DESERVES that authorship, then I think that's what they should get.

The problem I'm seeing is that people are classifying authorship not based on work, but based on hierarchy. Senior researchers should be on the paper even if all they did was said "this is how this test should be interpreted" and never put in any more hours. On the opposite end, undergrads who put in 40 hours of work are "entitled" when they ask to be on a paper. BTW, I have never ASKED to be on a paper. I have only asked to contribute enough to be on a paper- and if someone had told me "no as an RA, you stay where you are and stop asking for too much" then that's fine.

Here's the bottom line:
high school students < undergrads < senior undergrads < RA/coordinators < grad students < junior researchers < senior researchers < PI

That's the scheme that is emerging from this discussion and that's the scheme that everyone seems to follow. It's sickening.

 

[Pragma]

1) I am not an undergrad. I manage undergrads.
2) I am not demanding more publications. I said I don't think it's fair that some people who are at the bottom of the totem pole not get their recognition for the work they put in. And no, that does not include me. At this point, I am leaving my lab soon and have already submitted my applications. I have 3 months until possibly getting an interview. No papers are going to happen in 3 months. I'm trying to voice my opinion for all those undergrads who slave away thinking they will get SOMETHING and then being told "your 40 hours a week volunteer work won't get you anything other than a recommendation letter because you are too low down the totem pole to understand our work." Academia starts to feel like a pyramid scheme at a certain point...

40 hours a week volunteering? Honestly, your lab sounds terrible, and isn't representative IMO.

But there is a good PhD comic about the profzi scheme.

 

[phillips101]

40 hours a week volunteering? Honestly, your lab sounds terrible, and isn't representative IMO.

But there is a good PhD comic about the profzi scheme.

Yup, that wasn't an exaggeration. Not common, but we did have an undergrad volunteer 40 hours FULL WORK WEEKS for a very extended period of time.

 

[phillips101]

1) What I said applies to post-baccalaureate RAs working in labs and are trying to get into graduate school.
2) Your lab sounds messed up. Including acknowledgements and other opportunities is important in most places.

Really, I usually suggest that folks start with a poster if they are coming in "to get research experience." But I had some highly motivated folks who wanted to do their own small studies, and that was great (it took up a lot of my time, but was a somewhat worthwhile activity). That required guidance on IRBs and making responses, teaching how to do stats and research design, troubleshooting data collection issues, helping with setting up databases, helping with qualitative coding, and doing a lot of the writing. All along the way, these highly intellegient RAs needed guidance and we met 1:1 weekly for supervision. What did I earn? Second author on one paper. If I was selfish, I would have spent my time doing other stuff. But I think it is good citizenship as a researcher, and hopefully these (now grad students) will model this behavior for RAs they supervise.

If I get fired this week, I think I know why...

 

[Pragma]

No it's not a payback. It's a matter of work input: payback. If an RA or undergrad or ANYONE for that matter puts in enough work to be an author, they should be an author. Just because someone is getting paid or getting experience doesn't mean that's ALL they deserve. If an RA comes in and does only what's told and nothing else, then yes, it is entitlement to feel like they should get authorship. If an RA (or undergrad or grad or whatever) goes way above and beyond and actually DESERVES that authorship, then I think that's what they should get.

The problem I'm seeing is that people are classifying authorship not based on work, but based on hierarchy. Senior researchers should be on the paper even if all they did was said "this is how this test should be interpreted" and never put in any more hours. On the opposite end, undergrads who put in 40 hours of work are "entitled" when they ask to be on a paper. BTW, I have never ASKED to be on a paper. I have only asked to contribute enough to be on a paper- and if someone had told me "no as an RA, you stay where you are and stop asking for too much" then that's fine.

Here's the bottom line:
high school students < undergrads < senior undergrads < RA/coordinators < grad students < junior researchers < senior researchers < PI

That's the scheme that is emerging from this discussion and that's the scheme that everyone seems to follow. It's sickening.

phillips, that's just how it works. If PIs who got grants and had funding to do studies put in the grunt work, they wouldn't have time to get more grants and develop new ideas. So they hire people to do the grunt work. The grunt work, while time consuming, isn't of that much inherent value. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do - and if you get into graduate school, I hope you get over it.

 

[phillips101]

phillips, that's just how it works. If PIs who got grants and had funding to do studies put in the grunt work, they wouldn't have time to get more grants and develop new ideas. So they hire people to do the grunt work. The grunt work, while time consuming, isn't of that much inherent value. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do - and if you get into graduate school, I hope you get over it.

Actually, I think this is motivation for me to do my best in grad school to climb up that ladder of academianess.

Anyways, this was a very intellectually stimulating discussion. If this was a paper, can I be on it?

 

[Pragma]

Yup, that wasn't an exaggeration. Not common, but we did have an undergrad volunteer 40 hours FULL WORK WEEKS for a very extended period of time.

Most labs I know of either a) pay people or b) have a reasonable volunteer time commitment (e.g., 4-6 hours per week).

The other thing, particularly with UGs, is that folks often are doing independent studies and earning course credit. I'd say they are lucky if they are getting posters/pubs along wtih the course credit - it shouldn't just be expected.

 

[phillips101]

Most labs I know of either a) pay people or b) have a reasonable volunteer time commitment (e.g., 4-6 hours per week).

The other thing, particularly with UGs, is that folks often are doing independent studies and earning course credit. I'd say they are lucky if they are getting posters/pubs along wtih the course credit - it shouldn't just be expected.

Well we certain didn't require 40 hours a week. I tried to discourage it multiple times. But we're not going to lock the door on them if they insist on coming in.

Trust me, it isn't easy getting an authorship from my lab. I may have made it sound like I think every single person, even the subjects, should be on the papers but that isn't the case.

 

[ResearchGirlie]

I admit that part of it is likely hierarchy in a number of labs but what people newish to research forget is that there was much work behind the seasons far before data was being collected. Ideas were generated, funding was sought, hyptheses were created, etc. That is the early stages that sets the stage for others to come in and run subjects, enter data, clean data, etc. Those are also the things that are defined as "intellectual merit."

I get that it's frustrating to devote so much time and only get an acknowledgment or even no acknowledgment at all. It happens to grad students too who probably actually do contribute a bit more in the way of intellectual merit but still get buried in acknowledgements.

 

[phillips101]

I admit that part of it is likely hierarchy in a number of labs but what people newish to research forget is that there was much work behind the seasons far before data was being collected. Ideas were generated, funding was sought, hyptheses were created, etc. That is the early stages that sets the stage for others to come in and run subjects, enter data, clean data, etc. Those are also the things that are defined as "intellectual merit."

I get that it's frustrating to devote so much time and only get an acknowledgment or even no acknowledgment at all. It happens to grad students too who probably actually do contribute a bit more in the way of intellectual merit but still get buried in acknowledgements.

Agreed.

 

[Ollie123]

If someone made a true intellectual contribution, I have no problems with them getting authorship.

Over my years in research I'd wager I have supervised or co-supervised somewhere around 75 different undergraduates, and around 5 paid coordinators. In that time, maybe 1-2 of the coordinators made a substantive intellectual contribution to the research. I'm hard-pressed to think of any undergraduate who did so. If all someone did was follow instructions, they should not be an author - I don't care if they did 5 hours or 5000 hours of work. We've had several people receive authorships for things that probably weren't justified. Guidance is one thing, but after a certain amount of hand-holding its really no different than grunt work. Yes, even as a grad student I receive guidance too, but there's a big difference between a PI looking at a paper and saying "Hmm, have we considered how this alternative theory might also account for the findings" vs. "Now change the syntax to this variable. Hit run. No, that's not run, that is run. Okay now scroll down to the output. See that right column? Those are p values. Remember, you want them to be less than .05...". I won't speak to other people's experiences, but I don't know that I ever got the latter (and actually not nearly enough of the former either- but that's a discussion for another day!). If I did, I certainly wouldn't expect to be an author.

I'm reminded a bit of the parallels to teaching. Unfortunately, undergraduate psychology is often memorization-based. Learn these terms. Memorize the DSM criteria for this disorder. Students come to confuse "difficult" with "time-consuming". They freak out when presented with a vague scenario because "You didn't tell us what the answer was" not realizing that if they have any hope of going on in this field...vague scenarios is all they are ever going to get. A class isn't intellectually challenging because they had to spend 40 hours memorizing terms. With sufficient time and effort, I'm pretty sure I could get a monkey to correctly point to the DSM criteria when presented with a disorder. My suspicion is that this attitude/approach is where some of the "I deserve authorship" attitudes come from (not referring to you Phillips, but some of the other instances people have referred to). If a "monkey" can do the work, it doesn't warrant authorship...regardless of how much time the monkey spent.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think while authorship shouldn't be easy, there should be a pathway for it. If my RAs have the desire and ability to be an author, I make sure they're able to at least once during their time with me.

I agree. If someone has the skill and desire to be an author, a good mentor should give them opportunities to earn authorship. One of the best things my (amazing) undergrad mentor did was give me the opportunity to be truly involved in the research process, from conceptualization to publication. Of course, I had to prove my skills before those doors were opened, but once I had proven that I could contribute substantially to a project, I was given opportunities and mentorship throughout the publication process. My current program has mostly people with purely or heavily clinically-focused masters degrees who have not had a lot of exposure to research beyond data collection when they enter the program. Although the program quickly gets them up to speed, the learning curve is tremendous, and in many cases, I do think it can take a solid year off of their research productivity before they go on the job market. Having had that early and excellent mentorship in research and publication, the lag time between entering a new program/lab and getting actively involved in study development and publication has been much less.

 

[mewtoo]

I agree. If someone has the skill and desire to be an author, a good mentor should give them opportunities to earn authorship. One of the best things my (amazing) undergrad mentor did was give me the opportunity to be truly involved in the research process, from conceptualization to publication. Of course, I had to prove my skills before those doors were opened, but once I had proven that I could contribute substantially to a project, I was given opportunities and mentorship throughout the publication process. My current program has mostly people with purely or heavily clinically-focused masters degrees who have not had a lot of exposure to research beyond data collection when they enter the program. Although the program quickly gets them up to speed, the learning curve is tremendous, and in many cases, I do think it can take a solid year off of their research productivity before they go on the job market. Having had that early and excellent mentorship in research and publication, the lag time between entering a new program/lab and getting actively involved in study development and publication has been much less.

I guess I should consider myself very lucky then as my experiences with my undergraduate mentor sound very similar to yours. I've been told that my uni's psych department has a very unique research atmosphere as it is very undergrad focused. It only has a very small masters program, though, so its probably due to that.