Co-first authorship

[TFTH]

Hello! I have several co-first authorship papers lined up but no purely first author papers. How would this be interpreted? Is it bad that I don't have a purely first-author paper, or does it look any different than if they were just standard first-author papers?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[M&L]

no body is going to care probably. Great job! Thats an accomplishment to be proud of.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

No difference. Don't worry about it. Research is a highly collaborative activity now, and the practice of sharing first-authorship is widely accepted now.

 

[M&L]

No difference. Don't worry about it. Research is a highly collaborative activity now, and the practice of sharing first-authorship is widely accepted now.

yeah. To add - just make sure you know the paper, and comfortable with the content, etc. thats what really matters

 

[Goro]

No one will make a difference, as you're a first author under this arrangement, period.

 

[GoSpursGo]

It counts as first-author. Co-first author is increasingly being used to ensure people who deserve credit receive credit.

 

[deleted1065184]

The answer is no. However, ask your PI if it's okay if you can list your name first on your CV/in applications. Many PIs are okay with this.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I would not recommending changing the order ship of authors on a CV, even if you are a co-first author whose is technically listed second.

The people who know what co-first author means won’t care that you are listed second but the people who have less insight will think you fudged the publicly available information to make yourself look better, which you did and fudging information that is publicly available does not reflect well… at all.

 

[GoSpursGo]

The answer is no. However, ask your PI if it's okay if you can list your name first on your CV/in applications. Many PIs are okay with this.

Yeah agree with post above, don’t mess with the citation. People know what co first means. Please don’t swap the order

 

[deleted1065184]

There's really not a right or wrong answer, but fair point about some people viewing it poorly. I know PIs who don't do it, I know other PIs who say it's totally fine to swap for CVs (usually with a statement for clarification).

I personally just include an asterisk on my co-first manuscripts, whether I'm listed first or second. Researchers should know what that means. Although, I was recently listening to a podcast in which a residency director admitted he basically just skims through publication list looking at the names and number of publication...felt a bit discouraging lol

Slightly tangential, but I think it's silly for people to care that much about it, because if it's truly a co-first paper, order shouldn't matter. If the first name author actually did more work, they should be the sole first. But I realize there are politics behind it and some PIs do it solely so they can better justify being co-corresponding lol

 

[GoSpursGo]

I personally just include an asterisk on my co-first manuscripts, whether I'm listed first or second. Researchers should know what that means.

This

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Suggestion (subject to feedback): Just list your papers and provide DOI's or PMED's. Check if you can just cite publication title, volume, pages, etc., without giving the author list.

I happen to like white space.

 

[mistafab]

Honestly no one cares. All I do is skim your pubs when looking for interview fodder. The sheer number is more impressive anyway.