Better to be first author or last author?

[nauru]

I've read a fair number of discussions on this topic.

Most seem to agree that, in anything biomedically related, first and last author are far more important positions than middle authors.

But comparing first author to last author, which would you rather have on your CV when applying to residency? When applying for funding? When applying for competitive academic appointments? Considering the last author is the senior author who likely conceived the project, coordinated things and secured any relevant funding, and the first author is the person who wrote most of the manuscript (if I've got this right) it sounds like last author is more senior, more responsible, and viewed externally as, for lack of a better term, more valuable to the project. Thus, last authorship appears to be more valuable on one's CV than first authorship. Particularly if we frame the discussion in terms of who gets "credit" for the research, I would like credit for my work, and for the projects that I create and see through to completion.

I am at a point where I am the lead researcher on the projects I take on, and recruit interested students as needed. I'm not able to pay people but I do give authorship where it is due, regardless of academic rank. I find that typically I'm still doing the bulk of the work, and delegating small but analytically important chunks. This appeals to a number of ambitious students who are looking to get publications.

So I feel like my role could fit under the last author category or under the first author category but obviously I can't be both except in solo pubs. So which one to choose? Seems like last author is the way to go, when you are the lead researcher and originator of the project, but I'm open to other views.

Thanks in advance for your input.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

A first authorship indicates that you have done the majority of the writing and other work involved in bringing a project to publication. Even very senior, funded researchers will take first authorship on the main publication for a major study. As a trainee and even as an early career faculty member, it is important to show that you are capable of getting things done and seeing projects through to publication. Though nothing is stopping you from taking middle-author roles as well (only if they are not very time consuming), it will look better at this stage if most of your pubs are first authored.

 

[nauru]

A first authorship indicates that you have done the majority of the writing and other work involved in bringing a project to publication. Even very senior, funded researchers will take first authorship on the main publication for a major study. As a trainee and even as an early career faculty member, it is important to show that you are capable of getting things done and seeing projects through to publication. Though nothing is stopping you from taking middle-author roles as well (only if they are not very time consuming), it will look better at this stage if most of your pubs are first authored.

Thanks for your comment.

Please would you share your thoughts on first author vs last author though? I think it's not controversial that in general a first author role is better than a middle author role. But what about first author versus last author?

Also, when very senior, funded researchers take first authorship on the main publication for a major study, who takes last authorship?

Part of the reason I'm asking this is that even though I'm much closer to the beginning of my career than to the end, I'd like to shake that "junior researcher" label as quickly as possible so that I'm taken seriously when applying for semi-major funding as the principal applicant. From my experience on a couple of major (national) grant review boards, the decision makers care quite a bit about how much experience the principal applicant has leading projects. (My sense is that part of the value in such experience is that it implies a certain background in managing people, deadlines, and money.) So if being first author demonstrates that you know how to do stuff yourself, and last author on publications is the way to show you know how to be the leader of a research team/program, I wonder if the latter is actually more valuable for someone who aspires to be a principal researcher who leads a research program and delegates tasks, rather than remaining a junior academic or student who is technically capable and follows orders well.

 

[Medix450]

Last author is usually the person who runs the lab (the PI). They deal with all correspondence issues and such, and usually have a general supervisory function in the lab. Depending on the lab, the PI may put their name on every publication as last author, regardless if they did a large amount of work, or simply submitted the final manuscript. Unless you are leading a lab, I don't think you should be putting yourself down as the final author.

 

[deleted343839]

So if being first author demonstrates that you know how to do stuff yourself, and last author on publications is the way to show you know how to be the leader of a research team/program, I wonder if the latter is actually more valuable for someone who aspires to be a principal researcher who leads a research program and delegates tasks, rather than remaining a junior academic or student who is technically capable and follows orders well.

You are taking the last/lead authorship thing too literally. If you are still a trainee or early in your career, most of your publications should be first authored. Period. You will only puzzle people with a CV that shows you coming in last on a lot of publications, yet you have no record of funding to your name. It does not impress. It only confuses, and you will get less credit in others' eyes than you are hoping for.

Keep in mind also that a last authorship can also be a de facto middle authorship when there is no one in the "lead author" role.

If you want to shake the "junior researcher" label as quickly as possible then go get your own independent funding and form a team of your own. You might try getting a career development award or a small project grant as a first step. There is no shortcut.

 

[downwithDTB]

I think a few things are being conflated here: first authorship, last authorship and correspondence.

Correspondence goes to the person who takes primary responsibility for the manuscript. This person is usually the PI who funded and directed the project. They were the lead coordinator. A senior post doc might get this designation if it was really her project branching out of the PIs lab. A less senior person who made a very strong intellectual contribution going beyond a typical first author duties may also be honored with co-correspondence. One is typically asked to review manuscripts, grants, etc., promoted and given PI grants based on papers they correspond on. *However* if you are marked for correspondence on a paper that is not 1) in a well known and respected journal OR 2) co-corresponded by a well known and respected PI, you will look like a joke. You want your CV to show a strong record of being mentored before your independence.

First author goes to the person who did the most manual work: experiments and writing and contributed solidly from an intellectual standpoint. This is the best spot for a trainee.

Last author may either be: The "middle" author who contributed the least to the project. This is the usually case when corresponding author is also the first author. This is the worst place to be in a publication. OR, the last author may be a senior/corresponding author when there is a first author similar to above. The last author spot ONLY derives career benefit because of co-occurring with correspondence.

So your answer: The ideal would be to be First and co-corresponding author in a good journal with a very well respected PI as co-corresponding author. Until you are at the precipice of independence, you want to be as close to the first author position as possible. You should avoid correspondence as a trainee *unless* the previous criteria have been met (and it's usually a good idea that many papers out of your lab don't have trainees are corresponding authors to distinguish unique contributions when they are met).

Also, your post is a bit confusing: When applying to residency, you're still very much a trainee. When a applying for funding, are you talking about a mentored award (eg T/K) or an independent award (e.g. R01)? If the former, you want first author publications. The later, maybe corresponding author pubs, but not needed for your first grant.

If you're looking for a path to "independence" yet you have no money, perhaps rather than organizing medical students to do research for you, you should be finding a mentor to work under and mentor you, who would then be a senior author and you a first author.