"Asking" for 1st Authorship due to having 2 PIs

[agiraffe999]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey everyone. I'm working with 2 PIs (one young, one old) simultaneously to publish a paper. I wrote everything myself. I noticed on some of the previous papers the young PI was the 1st author, and the last author was the older PI. Is there a polite way to ask (before it gets written on the manuscript by the PI directly) to have 1st author? The manuscript is quite long and I don't want to be stuck with 2nd author and have the PI be first. A bit greedy, yes, but I wrote about 10 pages worth of stuff in the manuscript myself. Thanks in advance.

 

[Goro]

"Professor Jones, having a first authorship on this paper will really help me in my plans for X. Is this possible?"

 

[GoSpursGo]

First of all, this is why you really have to have these conversations before you start the process. Always better to have defined expectations and credit doled out in advance to avoid this specific awkward situation.

That said, authorship should be assigned based on who did the most work, not who "wants" or "needs" it. So to me it really comes down to what kind of manuscript is this? If it's a review paper, then if you wrote a good 10 pages (ie, your PI didn't have to basically re-write it), then it would make sense for you to be a first author. If instead this is a basic science paper or some other kind of clinical research paper which required data acquisition and analysis, then the person who performed the experiments/analysis probably is the deserving first author; it would, in my opinion, be inappropriate for you to ask for first authorship if you just swooped in and wrote up a completed study that someone else conducted.

A third option would be possible co-first authorship, which is becoming increasingly common. But tread carefully, because if it feels greedy to you, it probably is.

 

[agiraffe999]

"Professor Jones, having a first authorship on this paper will really help me in my plans for X. Is this possible?"

I'm way to scared of my PIs to ask this to their face 😆

 

[agiraffe999]

First of all, this is why you really have to have these conversations before you start the process. Always better to have defined expectations and credit doled out in advance to avoid this specific awkward situation.

That said, authorship should be assigned based on who did the most work, not who "wants" or "needs" it. So to me it really comes down to what kind of manuscript is this? If it's a review paper, then if you wrote a good 10 pages (ie, your PI didn't have to basically re-write it), then it would make sense for you to be a first author. If instead this is a basic science paper or some other kind of clinical research paper which required data acquisition and analysis, then the person who performed the experiments/analysis probably is the deserving first author; it would, in my opinion, be inappropriate for you to ask for first authorship if you just swooped in and wrote up a completed study that someone else conducted.

A third option would be possible co-first authorship, which is becoming increasingly common. But tread carefully, because if it feels greedy to you, it probably is.

Thank you. It is a case series, and I am writing everything from scratch. The PI provided me with the names of the patients who should have been discussed. I then wrote up the case series, got the figures to be included for all the patients, and wrote the cover letter myself. I would normally ask, but I'm working with a neurosurgeon and honestly has a bit of an intimidating personality. If they were more "chill" and carefree I would definetly ask. I don't mean to be greedy but I certainly spent more time on this than other case reports and but forth a lot of effort.

 

[operaman]

Definitely best to ask in advance but here we are. This is a very common conversation because everyone knows that authorship is academic currency. At this point you’re kind of at their mercy but still worth asking. In the future, always best to have the “can we discuss plans for authorship?” talk before investing the time.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Thank you. It is a case series, and I am writing everything from scratch. The PI provided me with the names of the patients who should have been discussed. I then wrote up the case series, got the figures to be included for all the patients, and wrote the cover letter myself. I would normally ask, but I'm working with a neurosurgeon and honestly has a bit of an intimidating personality. If they were more "chill" and carefree I would definetly ask. I don't mean to be greedy but I certainly spent more time on this than other case reports and but forth a lot of effort.

Yeah, what you're describing is first author level work. I would say that you should approach it by saying "Dr. so-and-so, given the work I put forth in writing this manuscript, doing the figures, and preparing for submission, I was hoping to be credited with first author which would obviously mean a lot for my application. What are your thoughts?" Then as stated above, you're at their mercy, and if it's a no well them's the breaks. Hopefully it works out though--they'd have to be real jerks to have you literally write the whole thing and then take first author on a case series that is honestly probably inconsequential to them.

 

[Lawpy]

First of all, this is why you really have to have these conversations before you start the process. Always better to have defined expectations and credit doled out in advance to avoid this specific awkward situation.

That said, authorship should be assigned based on who did the most work, not who "wants" or "needs" it. So to me it really comes down to what kind of manuscript is this? If it's a review paper, then if you wrote a good 10 pages (ie, your PI didn't have to basically re-write it), then it would make sense for you to be a first author. If instead this is a basic science paper or some other kind of clinical research paper which required data acquisition and analysis, then the person who performed the experiments/analysis probably is the deserving first author; it would, in my opinion, be inappropriate for you to ask for first authorship if you just swooped in and wrote up a completed study that someone else conducted.

A third option would be possible co-first authorship, which is becoming increasingly common. But tread carefully, because if it feels greedy to you, it probably is.

Eh while true, it also kinda depends on who initiated the project and did the initial ground work. Or maybe i'm just a sucker for deferring to seniority unless it's established early on who's taking the lead

 

[GoSpursGo]

Eh while true, it also kinda depends on who initiated the project and did the initial ground work. Or maybe i'm just a sucker for deferring to seniority unless it's established early on who's taking the lead

Yes, it *also* depends on that. But I would venture that involvement tends to land a senior author position.

And let's be real, this is a case series. It would be pretty crappy to tell someone, "Hey you should write up these cases," have someone else do all the work, and swoop in to take first author because you suggested it. If it really did involve a lot of work to identify the patients and come up with the story, or the senior person was heavily involved in the care of the patients, then maybe that's a good justification for co-first authorship. But generally the first author should be expected to actually write the manuscript, in my book.

 

[Lawpy]

Yes, it *also* depends on that. But I would venture that involvement tends to land a senior author position.

And let's be real, this is a case series. It would be pretty crappy to tell someone, "Hey you should write up these cases," have someone else do all the work, and swoop in to take first author because you suggested it. If it really did involve a lot of work to identify the patients and come up with the story, or the senior person was heavily involved in the care of the patients, then maybe that's a good justification for co-first authorship. But generally the first author should be expected to actually write the manuscript, in my book.

Definitely agree here.

 

[mvenus929]

Eh while true, it also kinda depends on who initiated the project and did the initial ground work. Or maybe i'm just a sucker for deferring to seniority unless it's established early on who's taking the lead

I mean, this is why these discussions should happen early. Most of the papers I've been on have relatively clear authorship--I do most of the work and get first author, or I contribute a lot and get second author. The project I'm currently trying to write up has the most ambiguity--it started with a patient that both me and another fellow took care of, evolved into a retrospective review. I wrote up the IRB protocol, did half the data collection, and did the initial data analysis (the rest was done by the statistician). The other fellow did the other half of the data collection and was starting to write up the manuscript when family issues came up and they had to step back. So if they had written up the manuscript, we each would have done about half the work and it was up in the air who would get first author. Now that I'm writing the manuscript, I claimed first authorship.

 

[Lawpy]

I mean, this is why these discussions should happen early. Most of the papers I've been on have relatively clear authorship--I do most of the work and get first author, or I contribute a lot and get second author. The project I'm currently trying to write up has the most ambiguity--it started with a patient that both me and another fellow took care of, evolved into a retrospective review. I wrote up the IRB protocol, did half the data collection, and did the initial data analysis (the rest was done by the statistician). The other fellow did the other half of the data collection and was starting to write up the manuscript when family issues came up and they had to step back. So if they had written up the manuscript, we each would have done about half the work and it was up in the air who would get first author. Now that I'm writing the manuscript, I claimed first authorship.

Equal contributions via co-first authors are a thing though. I don't do that personally but it can help resolve those ambiguous cases

 

[Doctor-S]

As far as I'm concerned, you would be the first author on your case series manuscript.

Although the neurosurgeon PI provided you with the names of the patients, plus access to clinical material and figures, you are the individual who proceeded forward with your own "case series" idea, and thereafter meticulously reviewed, organized, discussed, and manually wrote the entire manuscript, on your own initiative.

Agree with @GoSpursGo ... if the PI does not have to re-write or make significant revisions to the manuscript (e.g., new or novel information), it is your work product, and you deserve credit for your work product, as first author.

Just my humble thoughts ... from an MSTP peep here.

 

[agiraffe999]

As far as I'm concerned, you would be the first author on your case series manuscript.

Although the neurosurgeon PI provided you with the names of the patients, plus access to clinical material and figures, you are the individual who proceeded forward with your own "case series" idea, and thereafter meticulously reviewed, organized, discussed, and manually wrote the entire manuscript, on your own initiative.

Agree with @GoSpursGo ... if the PI does not have to re-write or make significant revisions to the manuscript (e.g., new or novel information), it is your work product, and you deserve credit for your work product, as first author.

Just my humble thoughts ... from an MSTP peep here.

Thanks for the comments. I didn't think of the case series, it was one of the PIs ideas. I still wrote up everything on my own time. would you say this still qualified (and would be appropriate for me to ask for 1st author)?

 

[mvenus929]

Equal contributions via co-first authors are a thing though. I don't do that personally but it can help resolve those ambiguous cases

Yes, it's not an easy thing to designate in the submission process (at least, not that I've seen, but I also haven't had any ambiguity in the papers I've submitted yet). And most people aren't going to look at the same of the author listed second too closely even if they are *technically* the first author.

Thanks for the comments. I didn't think of the case series, it was one of the PIs ideas. I still wrote up everything on my own time. would you say this still qualified (and would be appropriate for me to ask for 1st author)?

The PI whose idea it was should be listed as senior author. You did the work and should be listed as first author. Anyone else who contributed gets a middle author position.

 

[agiraffe999]

And let's be real, this is a case series. It would be pretty crappy to tell someone, "Hey you should write up these cases," have someone else do all the work, and swoop in to take first author because you suggested it. If it really did involve a lot of work to identify the patients and come up with the story, or the senior person was heavily involved in the care of the patients, then maybe that's a good justification for co-first authorship. But generally the first author should be expected to actually write the manuscript, in my book.

Update: I am getting co-first author. The PI is going to have to re-write a significant chunk of it as well as reformat everything. They were also the one who operated on all of these patients and I had no clinical care involvement with them. The PI said to switch the authorship and put an asterisk saying co-authorship with their name on my CV as well. The PI is a high ranking faculty member.

 

[Lawpy]

Update: I am getting co-first author. The PI is going to have to re-write a significant chunk of it as well as reformat everything. They were also the one who operated on all of these patients and I had no clinical care involvement with them. The PI said to switch the authorship and put an asterisk saying co-authorship with their name on my CV as well. The PI is a high ranking faculty member.

Wow a case series is really that big a deal for the PI?

 

[GoSpursGo]

Update: I am getting co-first author. The PI is going to have to re-write a significant chunk of it as well as reformat everything. They were also the one who operated on all of these patients and I had no clinical care involvement with them. The PI said to switch the authorship and put an asterisk saying co-authorship with their name on my CV as well. The PI is a high ranking faculty member.

If there are significant revisions, then this seems more or less equitable honestly. Especially given the clinical contributions, his efforts will probably be at least equal to yours. Don't take it personally--it's still painful to get revisions back from the senior author with tons of red markup.

 

[Lawpy]

If there are significant revisions, then this seems more or less equitable honestly. Especially given the clinical contributions, his efforts will probably be at least equal to yours. Don't take it personally--it's still painful to get revisions back from the senior author with tons of red markup.

Case series is still low in research quality right? So it's bizarre for high ranking faculty PIs to make a big deal over first authorships and co firsts/equal contributions. You'd expect them to focus their efforts on clinical trials

 

[GoSpursGo]

Case series is still low in research quality right? So it's bizarre for high ranking faculty PIs to make a big deal over first authorships and co firsts/equal contributions. You'd expect them to focus their efforts on clinical trials

... how many people do you think are involved in clinical trials?

Yes, low in research quality, but you can still learn something from them, and all publications have some importance on CVs as people are coming up for promotion (the younger PI presumably still needs some more first authorships). And again, it's not about "gifting" someone first-authorship just because they want it. The bottom line is that whoever did the most work should be first author. It's great that they gave the OP the first crack at writing the paper, but if there are extensive revisions it is 100% possible that the PI is putting in at least as much work even before you consider the clinical care aspect.

This sounds like a perfect case where co-first author is appropriate.

 

[agiraffe999]

If there are significant revisions, then this seems more or less equitable honestly. Especially given the clinical contributions, his efforts will probably be at least equal to yours. Don't take it personally--it's still painful to get revisions back from the senior author with tons of red markup.

Yeah I think it is fair. The PI is going to have to edit like 10 pages. I'm expecting a ton of markups considering I'm not that skilled of a writer.

Case series is still low in research quality right? So it's bizarre for high ranking faculty PIs to make a big deal over first authorships and co firsts/equal contributions. You'd expect them to focus their efforts on clinical trials

The case series is about an extremely rare surgery that was to be done in COVID patients. Only 1 patient in the world has gotten this type of procedure done before, and that was published in The Lancet. The PI isn't making a big deal IMO and this project is on the back burner. We are aiming for a Lancet or some other journal at that level so hence I was wondering about authorship.

 

[GoSpursGo]

The case series is about an extremely rare surgery that was to be done in COVID patients. Only 1 patient in the world has gotten this type of procedure done before, and that was published in The Lancet. The PI isn't making a big deal IMO and this project is on the back burner. We are aiming for a Lancet or some other journal at that level so hence I was wondering about authorship.

And this is why sometimes case series can still be valuable contributions to the literature 🙂

It honestly sounds like they're being very fair with co-first authorship. Do your best to stay engaged and offer to do anything possible as they revise/edit/format for journals.

 

[Lawpy]

... how many people do you think are involved in clinical trials?

Yes, low in research quality, but you can still learn something from them, and all publications have some importance on CVs as people are coming up for promotion (the younger PI presumably still needs some more first authorships). And again, it's not about "gifting" someone first-authorship just because they want it. The bottom line is that whoever did the most work should be first author. It's great that they gave the OP the first crack at writing the paper, but if there are extensive revisions it is 100% possible that the PI is putting in at least as much work even before you consider the clinical care aspect.

This sounds like a perfect case where co-first author is appropriate.

Tbh, i thought a lot (at least in case of prospective studies as a whole, RCTs are fewer). Even retrospective studies are viewed more important than case series and it looked like OP did a significant amount of work (it read like they were leading the project initially).

I guess a co-first authorship is fair but that reads like a glorified 2nd authorship for me because of the way the paper's cited gives priority to the first listed author. Maybe i can't fault on the senior PI since they at least understood OP's concerns

Yeah I think it is fair. The PI is going to have to edit like 10 pages. I'm expecting a ton of markups considering I'm not that skilled of a writer.


The case series is about an extremely rare surgery that was to be done in COVID patients. Only 1 patient in the world has gotten this type of procedure done before, and that was published in The Lancet. The PI isn't making a big deal IMO and this project is on the back burner. We are aiming for a Lancet or some other journal at that level so hence I was wondering about authorship.

Oh. That changes things and isn't a standard case series i was thinking. I think the co first is the best possible option to have and i see why that matters for the younger PI

 

[GoSpursGo]

Tbh, i thought a lot (at least in case of prospective studies as a whole, RCTs are fewer). Even retrospective studies are viewed more important than case series and it looked like OP did a significant amount of work (it read like they were leading the project initially).

I guess a co-first authorship is fair but that reads like a glorified 2nd authorship for me because of the way the paper's cited gives priority to the first listed author. Maybe i can't fault on the senior PI since they at least understood OP's concerns

Nah, very few people have their own trials, and keep in mind you only write those pubs after the fact 🙂 Even some serious retrospective studies can take a significant amount of time and savvy to put together. So while this idea that prospective information is king is true, there is a lot of value still in retrospective and even small studies.

there is probably some small downside to being second co-first author, but it’s not like the citation actually matters. The OP will be able to notate this as a co-first authorship on CV and in ERAS, so it will be obvious that this is a first to anyone who bothers to do more than skim the author list. And ultimately, if this case series is a big enough deal to be in a high impact journal and the young PI did all the surgery, this is probably very fair.

 

[Doctor-S]

Thanks for the comments. I didn't think of the case series, it was one of the PIs ideas. I still wrote up everything on my own time. would you say this still qualified (and would be appropriate for me to ask for 1st author)?

Your co-authorship with PI is fine.