-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
authorship conflict...advice needed.
Started by Zumab
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
You are more likely to receive help if you explain the dilemma here first
If the question is "I need to be on the paper" - that's easy. Tell your PI you put in work and you should be on the paper.
If you want to be first author - did you do most of the work? Was the idea yours or were you just a grunt in the lab carrying out the basic labs and collecting data and handing it over to someone to analyze/draw conclusions?
If you are an undergrad working under a new PI or a grad student, be thankful they give you 2nd author.
Also, any author after the first 2 are basically alphabetical order or whatever - no one cares. Last author is usually the PI.
If you want to be first author - did you do most of the work? Was the idea yours or were you just a grunt in the lab carrying out the basic labs and collecting data and handing it over to someone to analyze/draw conclusions?
If you are an undergrad working under a new PI or a grad student, be thankful they give you 2nd author.
Also, any author after the first 2 are basically alphabetical order or whatever - no one cares. Last author is usually the PI.
In my experience (8 years of research experience, 6 full time as a Ph.D student), first authorship is self-evident. As a first author, you will take so much responsibility for the article that having yourself as first author will come naturally.
The PI(s) are often the last author. The order all other authors are listed in is basically irrelevant. I did not say that being second author is irrelevant to admissions: it's just not better than being third or fourth, really.
As for "who should be an author", the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has established the following criteria:
You have to meet all four criteria to be an author. Everyone else should be in the acknowledgements section.
The PI(s) are often the last author. The order all other authors are listed in is basically irrelevant. I did not say that being second author is irrelevant to admissions: it's just not better than being third or fourth, really.
As for "who should be an author", the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has established the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
You have to meet all four criteria to be an author. Everyone else should be in the acknowledgements section.
My PI ALWAYS puts himself as first author 🙄
Add to this the first author will probably do most of the writing, even if only at draft level.
PIs tend to put their name first on review articles, it seems.
PIs tend to put their name first on review articles, it seems.
My PI told me that he gets more funding by putting his students as first authors.
There are some cases where the PI will do most of the bench work and put a trainee who contributed a figure or two as first author so the PI can be the senior author. These people are lucky.
... and I have NEVER seen a PI do bench work.
My previous PI started doing benchwork. He/She was very excited about it. It lasted about 3 weeks.
My PI would do some independent projects working with fulminate compounds. I think he just liked the thrill of working with dangerous compounds though. There was another PI who would do fluorine work independently
PIs do not, and should not do bench work - they need to focus on their jobs - get us (PhD students / postdocs) funds / collaborations to advance the project. Bench work is grad students' responsibility. However, I still saw some micro-managed PI, who loved to go over experimental plan / help with bench work.
Just to say that if your PI is an MD this is more common. If your PI is a PhD it is exceedingly rare unless something happens where another PI refuses to take anything but last in a collaboration but it's really your PI's lab that did all the work (yes I've seen this happen when people collaborate with big names in the field and egos are involved)
New PIs and those scrambling to get tenure tend to micro-manage and do some bench work to help push papers along. I rarely see an Associate Professor or up do any bench work.
I wouldn't say that PIs should not do bench work. It depends greatly on the style of the individual PI, as well as the assay. I know full professors who do it regularly, and they have 10+ member labs.
Yah, you are probably right. It's my bias - I hate it when my PI is near my bench...
He is a PhD. It makes pretty close to zero sense, but his choice I suppose.
