Authorship in Journals

[KeratinPearls]

Hi, I am currently doing research now and was wondering what are the "criteria" that one must meet in order to be an author on a paper. I know that those who do a majority of the work, ie. data collection and writing of the manuscript (first authors), obviously should be on the paper. Also, the PI and all co-investigators should be on the paper.

Having said that, I will be involved in a project where I will be generating (by experimentation) and collecting the most significant data of a project. I am not quite sure who will be responsible for writing the manuscript. My project has potential to generate multiple papers. Wiill that mean my name will be on all papers considering that I will generate and collect all significant data for this project?

Ultimately, the decision of who will be authors on a paper will be up to the first author or PI. Is this correct? I have heard of some PIs not giving credit when credit is due.

Having done basic science research in the past, I heard that your name can appear on a paper if you just did one experiment or supplied an antibody to the project (piggybacked onto the paper).

Thanks for any insight.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

Ultimately, the decision of who will be authors on a paper will be up to the first author or PI. Is this correct? I have heard of some PIs not giving credit when credit is due.

Having done basic science research in the past, I heard that your name can appear on a paper if you just did one experiment or supplied an antibody to the project (piggybacked onto the paper).

You're right, it's basically up to the senior author who to include. Some journals have limits on how many authors you can have without supplying extra justification (that is, if a journal limits you to eight, the senior author will have to provide justification for the inclusion of everyone if you try to do nine - it isn't usually that tough to do, but it's extra work). The first author can lobby for the inclusion of someone else who did a lot of work on it, but it doesn't mean you will get it.

Unfortunately, when many papers have lots of authors and some of the authors only played minor roles, it is usually because these minor roles are from someone well known in the field. This is either to give the paper more "weight" and hopefully have it considered more seriously, or to get on that famous person's good side perhaps. Sometimes, though, these very minor roles are important, like providing key data or an important review. The situation you refer to above is usually the case where it is someone well known in the field.

I have seen papers where authors were included who did next to nothing, and also seen papers where someone played a seemingly key role yet was only listed as an "acknowledgement." Med students sometimes help pull cases out of the file or be a gopher for a research assistant, and can get their name on a paper though. It all depends, unfortunately!

I would think if you did a lot of the actual work that you would be given a co-authorship.

 

[docbiohazard]

Not that they're always followed, but the ICMJE has published "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication." It includes authorship guidelines which read as follows:

• Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
• (deleted section about large multi-center studies)
• Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
• All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
• Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

So, to answer your question, you should be substantially involved in the design, data collection, or data analysis; you should be involved in writing or revising the article; and finally, you should sign off on the final version (most journals require all authors to sign off on the final version). If you just collect the data, and do no work on the actual article, you technically should not be considered an author. This is probably one of the most frequently violated concepts. Generally, the PI gets listed as the last author, unless it's a junior PI that still needs to work on generating first author manuscripts...

So if generate all the significant data, just make sure you're involved in the writing / revising of all the papers generated, and you should get authorship credit. YMMV, however. I have worked in labs with good authorship practices and labs with not so good practices, trust me its something worth looking into before you join a lab group...

Good luck!
BH

 

[gbwillner]

Having said that, I will be involved in a project where I will be generating (by experimentation) and collecting the most significant data of a project. I am not quite sure who will be responsible for writing the manuscript. My project has potential to generate multiple papers. Wiill that mean my name will be on all papers considering that I will generate and collect all significant data for this project?

Put it back in yer pants...(don't count your chicks before they've hatched!!)

 

[yaah]

So if generate all the significant data, just make sure you're involved in the writing / revising of all the papers generated, and you should get authorship credit. YMMV, however. I have worked in labs with good authorship practices and labs with not so good practices, trust me its something worth looking into before you join a lab group...

I wrote a paper last year in which we were told by one of the senior authors to include someone who did minimal work on the project, and who I (as the person who did most of the work and the writing) never had contact with apart from "can you sign this form so we can submit the paper?". This person helped out another author who did some data collecting for us. So, it also helps to have an advocate.

 

[KeratinPearls]

I am working on cutting-edge research and therefore can put out multiple papers. I have been told that I will be an author on these papers. All of them? A few of them? I am not sure yet. Anyways, if I do all the data generating and collection and my name isn't put on the paper, I would be salty. I have no other options than to continue with the research and hopefully the PI will see how hard I have worked and put my name on the papers.

I am not sure if I will be involved with writing and revision of the manuscript or whether I will be first author or not. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the PI directly about being a first author for the paper?

Thanks.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I am working on cutting-edge research and therefore can put out multiple papers. I have been told that I will be an author on these papers. All of them? A few of them? I am not sure yet. Anyways, if I do all the data generating and collection and my name isn't put on the paper, I would be salty. I have no other options than to continue with the research and hopefully the PI will see how hard I have worked and put my name on the papers.

I am not sure if I will be involved with writing and revision of the manuscript or whether I will be first author or not. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the PI directly about being a first author for the paper?

Thanks.

OK...if you're the impetus behind the intellectual design of the paper, you perform most of the experiments, and you write the manuscript, you can make a case for being first author.

However, if you are not constructing hypotheses, testing the hypotheses through experimentation, and not generating PRIMARY EXPERIMENTAL DATA, then you should not be first author.

A classical example that comes to mind for me are tissue microarray projects. Somebody will collect the clinical data and select the cases to be included in the microarrays. The tissue microarrays will be used in immunohistochemical experiments where various antibodies/markers will be studied by OTHER people. That data may be used to perform mechanistic studies by OTHER people.

Yes, this person invested LOTS of time in collecting the clinical data. However, should this person be first author on all the resulting papers that utilize the microarray? BIG FAT NO! That person can be included as a middle author on all resulting papers that utilize the microarray but since this person did not construct the research questions and perform the experiments to test hypotheses leading to manuscript preparation, that person does NOT deserve to be first author.

If you are in this kind of position (this may or may not apply to you), I would not bother asking to be first author.

 

[yaah]

Yeah. No way you will ever be first author if you didn't even write it. That shouldn't even be a consideration. Workload on a paper is often

First author: 60%
Senior author: 30% (often in project design, theory, supervision, etc)
Everyone else: 10%

Obviously there are many cases when a minor author puts in substantially more work. And in many cases the senior author does more work than the first author.