PhD/PsyD Did my first-authorship just get taken?

[Kay Michael]

Hi everyone and thank you in advance for reading this.


I am a first-year PhD student in a funded counseling psych program at a large research university. Overall, I feel like I won the lottery with how great my advisor has been. Last week, however, something happened involving authorship that has led to more complicated feelings toward my advisor. I'm hoping folks can weigh in and offer any perspective on this specific situation and/or on authorship conversations more broadly.

Backstory: After I was offered a spot in the program and before I accepted, I had a conversation with this faculty member in which they shared multiple project ideas that we could work on in the near future. Several were secondary analysis projects and one involved running a medium-sized RCT. From the beginning, the language the faculty member used involved a lot of phrasing such as "your study" and "this would be an opportunity for you to run your own RCT." Eventually I accepted the offer and joined the program.

Flash forward to the start of the semester. At my new advisor's suggestion, I chose to work on the study design, IRB and lit search for this project as part of a course that my advisor also happens to teach. This project will culminate in me writing a complete article with mock findings, such that we will basically be able to simply insert the findings and make a few tweaks to the intro/discussion after we run the study in the spring or summer.

Based on the fact that I am also currently working on two different secondary analysis projects with this person, on which I am second author, and based on the fact that their language has always clearly indicated that this third project was "mine," I had naturally assumed I would be first author. After all, I was coming up with the majority of the study design and I will be running ≥ 200 participants through a battery of behavioral and self-report measures at pre, post, and follow-up (which will take a tremendous amount of my time and attention). And they never called any of the other studies we were working on “mine;" those projects were clearly theirs.

I was feeling increasingly excited about this project until about 10 days ago when we met and my advisor informed me they had "realized we hadn't had the authorship conversation." In short, I was told that they would be first author and that "it is not inappropriate" for them to claim first author, given where I'm at in my training and given the fact that many early doc students serve as "project leads" for major research projects and basically do all the heavy lifting only to get second author. I am, however, also aware that my advisor does not have many first-authored RCTs on their CV, as they have only been in their faculty role for two years and the bulk of their work has been on reviews and meta-analyses. I am one of this person's first doc students, too, so they are learning on the job when it comes to being an advisor. I was also told that I should be happy with second-authorship and that it won't matter that much for me at this point whether I'm in the first- or second-author spot, whereas the difference between first- and second-authorship for them matters a great deal right now. I was also encouraged to avoid seeming too "greedy" about authorship spots, which I appreciated as sound advice and also found frustrating considering the context.

My advisor assured me that they had not changed their mind about me being first author and instead there had simply been a miscommunication. However, they also said that they had spoken with their mentor recently and there seemed to be a pretty clear subtext that my advisor has now realized they really need more first-authored RCTs (especially in this area) on their CV as they work toward tenure and future grant opportunities. So I guess, especially after they had spoken about this project as "mine" for 6 months and had encouraged me to be entirely self-directed in terms of the study design, etc, now it really felt like they just took the first-authorship away from me primarily because they think they need it more than I do (which might actually be true in this moment, but what about when I'm on the job market in the future?). Now I'm left staring down the barrel of this thing and it just feels like I'm going to be doing a massive amount of more work than they will be doing on this project, so I'm feeling pretty demotivated and frustrated.

Again, in so many ways I have been extraordinarily grateful for this advisor. They are clearly invested in my professional development and regularly go out of their way to give me other opportunities. They also threw me a sort of consolation prize by suggesting that when we run this RCT, I can first-author a separate article related to the data we collect, but the actual intervention data will now be theirs.

I've only shared this with a few trusted people. My primary concern here has to be maintaining a strong relationship with my advisor, so I'm not trying to spread this information around in my gossipy department. The fact that I really need to protect the relationship, however, leaves me hyperaware of the power imbalance in this relationship and feeling like I don't have much recourse. I've gotten very different responses from the few folks I have told about this, ranging from "welcome to academia and suck it up; this is par for the course" to "that's really unacceptable and surprising, and you should really consider taking a stand because that will be a massive amount of hours on top of your already monstrous workload, and authorship should reflect the amount of time/hours/effort that each person puts in."

What do you all think about this? I have heard MUCH worse authorship stories around academia and I know that this really might be pretty standard. Still, I'm relatively new to this game and am having complicated feelings toward this person now. Some questions I'm considering:

- Does this sound appropriate/ethical?

- What, if anything, should I do about this situation? More importantly, how can I at least protect myself from this happening again in the future?

- Is it really true that as a first-year, I shouldn't really be too concerned about not being first-author, and that second-authorship is nearly as good for me at this point in my career?

Any insight or advice would be much appreciated.

With thanks,
Kay

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

1) Why isn't the PI the last author? That's like research 101.

2) This is one of those situations where you can be right or you can help your long term goals. Sucking it up is a significant part of grad school. It's not right, it's not supposed to happen, there are methods of fighting it, but using those methods are almost always a career killer. So shut up, take it, know it isn't right, and do better when you're eventually in a position of power.

 

[deleted1003601]

I worked on a paper with my mentor and another person that was an abstract for NAN which then was submitted to Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. I had left the institution; despite my significant contributions, they left me off the manuscript.

 

[denimfan]

Does it matter? Of course, it matters. Does it sound ethical? Not really. Can you do anything about it? I would veer away from doing anything about it at this point, given also that your relationship with the advisor is still developing. However, as you progress through your program and if this happens consistently (where your advisor says one thing and then blindsides you again with discrepant information), you need to have a real talk with the advisor. This is part of your professional development. At that point, hopefully the relationship with your advisor is strong enough to hold such a discussion.

Btw, first authorship (at least in psychology) will always have much greater weight than the second authorship regardless of where you are in your training (especially if you pretty much did most of the work and spearheaded it). Not sure if there is any merit to what your advisor is saying here.

 

[Unipsychler]

I kind of agree with PsyDr's second point, here. I think you ARE right, and you COULD fight this and get it changed. But think about these two options:

1) Fight this authorship issue now. You may just get it with no repercussions, but you may also sour your relationship with the advisor and decrease your chances of better opportunities in the future. Or worst case, your advisor may decide to change the structure of the research work such that you no longer deserve first author (because remember, you have been planning to run this study yourself, but have not done so yet. And you really aren't in a position to run this by yourself without your advisor's support).

2) Eat this one for the sake of your relationship with your advisor, but use it as a stepping off point for negotiating a bunch of great publications for the rest of your time there: "Advisor, I really think that if I wasn't a first-year, the amount of leadership I am taking on for this project would warrant a first authorship, so I do feel a little uncomfortable not having first authorship. Given the reasons you outlined, I agree that second authorship makes sense for this publication, but let's make a plan now about how I will accrue some first authorships going forward in the program."

You need to think longterm about this, and consider which of these two options will net you the best CV by the time you leave the program. If this is a once-in-a-lifetime study opportunity that is unlikely to come again in your time at the program, maybe go more for #1. But, if it seems like this advisor has the ability to guide you through multiple different studies, maybe it's in your best interest to suck up to them.

There was a similar situation in my lab. One student had their dissertation being written up for publication, and the PI wanted to take first authorship, reasoning that the dissertation was part of a larger research program they were spearheading. The student told them in a meeting, "I just don't feel it's right to not get first authorship on a study that is primarily using my dissertation for its data," and it ended up really well; PI basically said "You're right", gave them the authorship and everyone was cool. However, this student was at the end of their program so they had less to lose at that point, and was unlikely to start any new projects after that.

 

[PsyDr]

Since I don't care: this type of crap continues into your career. I have heard stories of attorneys being brought in after some ABPP boards were perceived to not work by their own policies.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't publish much anymore, but agree with what's been said. Even if the argument of the advisor is that the foundational idea was theirs, it sounds like it was communicated poorly. There are definitely practices that get passed down (in academia and elsewhere) that aren't fair. At the very least, for future projects, it sounds like it'd be a good idea to have the authorship conversation early. For a first project, I would probably just go with it. If it happened multiple times, then I would discuss it with them.

And our university eventually specifically forbade profs from taking first authorship on their students' dissertations (there were a couple serial offenders across different departments, I believe).

 

[Justanothergrad]

1) Why isn't the PI the last author? That's like research 101.

2) This is one of those situations where you can be right or you can help your long term goals. Sucking it up is a significant part of grad school. It's not right, it's not supposed to happen, there are methods of fighting it, but using those methods are almost always a career killer. So shut up, take it, know it isn't right, and do better when you're eventually in a position of power.

1. I would never 'last author' anything. My institution/department would view that as an indication of minimal contribution. First author is more common for psych than last.

2. Agreed.

Hi everyone and thank you in advance for reading this.


I am a first-year PhD student in a funded counseling psych program at a large research university. Overall, I feel like I won the lottery with how great my advisor has been. Last week, however, something happened involving authorship that has led to more complicated feelings toward my advisor. I'm hoping folks can weigh in and offer any perspective on this specific situation and/or on authorship conversations more broadly.

Backstory: After I was offered a spot in the program and before I accepted, I had a conversation with this faculty member in which they shared multiple project ideas that we could work on in the near future. Several were secondary analysis projects and one involved running a medium-sized RCT. From the beginning, the language the faculty member used involved a lot of phrasing such as "your study" and "this would be an opportunity for you to run your own RCT." Eventually I accepted the offer and joined the program.

Flash forward to the start of the semester. At my new advisor's suggestion, I chose to work on the study design, IRB and lit search for this project as part of a course that my advisor also happens to teach. This project will culminate in me writing a complete article with mock findings, such that we will basically be able to simply insert the findings and make a few tweaks to the intro/discussion after we run the study in the spring or summer.

Based on the fact that I am also currently working on two different secondary analysis projects with this person, on which I am second author, and based on the fact that their language has always clearly indicated that this third project was "mine," I had naturally assumed I would be first author. After all, I was coming up with the majority of the study design and I will be running ≥ 200 participants through a battery of behavioral and self-report measures at pre, post, and follow-up (which will take a tremendous amount of my time and attention). And they never called any of the other studies we were working on “mine;" those projects were clearly theirs.

I was feeling increasingly excited about this project until about 10 days ago when we met and my advisor informed me they had "realized we hadn't had the authorship conversation." In short, I was told that they would be first author and that "it is not inappropriate" for them to claim first author, given where I'm at in my training and given the fact that many early doc students serve as "project leads" for major research projects and basically do all the heavy lifting only to get second author. I am, however, also aware that my advisor does not have many first-authored RCTs on their CV, as they have only been in their faculty role for two years and the bulk of their work has been on reviews and meta-analyses. I am one of this person's first doc students, too, so they are learning on the job when it comes to being an advisor. I was also told that I should be happy with second-authorship and that it won't matter that much for me at this point whether I'm in the first- or second-author spot, whereas the difference between first- and second-authorship for them matters a great deal right now. I was also encouraged to avoid seeming too "greedy" about authorship spots, which I appreciated as sound advice and also found frustrating considering the context.

My advisor assured me that they had not changed their mind about me being first author and instead there had simply been a miscommunication. However, they also said that they had spoken with their mentor recently and there seemed to be a pretty clear subtext that my advisor has now realized they really need more first-authored RCTs (especially in this area) on their CV as they work toward tenure and future grant opportunities. So I guess, especially after they had spoken about this project as "mine" for 6 months and had encouraged me to be entirely self-directed in terms of the study design, etc, now it really felt like they just took the first-authorship away from me primarily because they think they need it more than I do (which might actually be true in this moment, but what about when I'm on the job market in the future?). Now I'm left staring down the barrel of this thing and it just feels like I'm going to be doing a massive amount of more work than they will be doing on this project, so I'm feeling pretty demotivated and frustrated.

Again, in so many ways I have been extraordinarily grateful for this advisor. They are clearly invested in my professional development and regularly go out of their way to give me other opportunities. They also threw me a sort of consolation prize by suggesting that when we run this RCT, I can first-author a separate article related to the data we collect, but the actual intervention data will now be theirs.

I've only shared this with a few trusted people. My primary concern here has to be maintaining a strong relationship with my advisor, so I'm not trying to spread this information around in my gossipy department. The fact that I really need to protect the relationship, however, leaves me hyperaware of the power imbalance in this relationship and feeling like I don't have much recourse. I've gotten very different responses from the few folks I have told about this, ranging from "welcome to academia and suck it up; this is par for the course" to "that's really unacceptable and surprising, and you should really consider taking a stand because that will be a massive amount of hours on top of your already monstrous workload, and authorship should reflect the amount of time/hours/effort that each person puts in."

What do you all think about this? I have heard MUCH worse authorship stories around academia and I know that this really might be pretty standard. Still, I'm relatively new to this game and am having complicated feelings toward this person now. Some questions I'm considering:

- Does this sound appropriate/ethical?

- What, if anything, should I do about this situation? More importantly, how can I at least protect myself from this happening again in the future?

- Is it really true that as a first-year, I shouldn't really be too concerned about not being first-author, and that second-authorship is nearly as good for me at this point in my career?

Any insight or advice would be much appreciated.

With thanks,
Kay

1. The shifting communication seems problematic and misleading based on your report
2. The idea was theirs and it seems reasonable that they first author the intervention.
3. Regardless of your role on the project, writing the paper so that you're ready to plug and play is smart practice. Mimic this in the future.
4. I would not expect a student to have planned and conducted an RCT as the primary author during graduate school. I would actually have questions about that if I saw it. I would especially wonder why a 1st year student was doing that because that is likely not reflective of their capacities to conduct that as the PI, much less fund it and make the decisions that need to be made.
5. FA are better than SA pubs, but the biggest hurdle to an academic job will be creating enough publications within an area of focus so if you get several publications out that's great.
6. Make sure you enroll in a practicum class and get supervision for the interactions with the clients you are treating in the RCT. Count those hours in APPIC and use this experience to cement your internships of choice through intentional training and research involvement throughout the remainder of your time in the program.
7. What is your career goal? if its academics, then you are winning several prizes right now despite the mess. The first goal is to publish. The second goal is to publish with your name higher up in the list. The final goal is to do so within a concentrated area. If its not academics, return to point #6. If you said this and I missed it, excuse my lack of coffee.

 

[Justanothergrad]

And our university eventually specifically forbade profs from taking first authorship on their students' dissertations (there were a couple serial offenders across different departments, I believe).

Its always amazing when people openly ignore explicit APA ethics

 

[ClinicalABA]

Its always amazing when people openly ignore explicit APA ethics

Right?!? I think this is happening the OP's situation as well. I agree with other posters regarding the OP not pushing the issue to much this time (it sucks, but the goal of grad school is ultimately to finish grad school, and doing stuff that could interfere with the timely attainment of that goal is unwise). However, calling this situation thing like "unfair" is a little incomplete. Assuming the info from the OP is accurate, It is clearly unethical behavior, per code 8.12 a-b.

 

[Autobiographique]

Rising tides lift all ships. It is often like this with authorships. Sometimes you work really hard and do the bulk of the work, and end up on the third place, and sometimes you contribute just a little and become an author anyway. It is a very tricky situation, but if you and your supervisor keep publishing together, you may have more than one article coming out from that study, since it sounds pretty big, and then sometimes he will be the first author and sometimes you will be one. You couldn't have done it without him, I imagine; he could have done it without you probably.

 

[tr]

Doesn't your field have a way to acknowledge the person who had the idea and raised the funding (PI, faculty) separately from the person who did the heavy lifting on the ground (grad student, postdoc, fellow)? It's weird to me that a first year grad student and their faculty mentor are battling it out for the same place in the author lineup. Agree with upthread comment that PI = last ('senior') author is typical in many fields.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Doesn't your field have a way to acknowledge the person who had the idea and raised the funding (PI, faculty) separately from the person who did the heavy lifting on the ground (grad student, postdoc, fellow)? It's weird to me that a first year grad student and their faculty mentor are battling it out for the same place in the author lineup. Agree with upthread comment that PI = last ('senior') author is typical in many fields.

I don't work in academic medicine, but I've certainly seen last authorship as PI used frequently in AMC settings, and even in some places in academia, although it may be less typical there. And academia + tenure is a whole 'nother animal that probably depends on the university.

 

[psych.meout]

1. I would never 'last author' anything. My institution/department would view that as an indication of minimal contribution. First author is more common for psych than last.

2. Agreed.



1. The shifting communication seems problematic and misleading based on your report
2. The idea was theirs and it seems reasonable that they first author the intervention.
3. Regardless of your role on the project, writing the paper so that you're ready to plug and play is smart practice. Mimic this in the future.
4. I would not expect a student to have planned and conducted an RCT as the primary author during graduate school. I would actually have questions about that if I saw it. I would especially wonder why a 1st year student was doing that because that is likely not reflective of their capacities to conduct that as the PI, much less fund it and make the decisions that need to be made.
5. FA are better than SA pubs, but the biggest hurdle to an academic job will be creating enough publications within an area of focus so if you get several publications out that's great.
6. Make sure you enroll in a practicum class and get supervision for the interactions with the clients you are treating in the RCT. Count those hours in APPIC and use this experience to cement your internships of choice through intentional training and research involvement throughout the remainder of your time in the program.
7. What is your career goal? if its academics, then you are winning several prizes right now despite the mess. The first goal is to publish. The second goal is to publish with your name higher up in the list. The final goal is to do so within a concentrated area. If its not academics, return to point #6. If you said this and I missed it, excuse my lack of coffee.

Ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this. I've known grad students to work on and make substantial contributions to RCTs run by faculty and their collaborators, but it seems quite strange for a grad student to be first author of the primary paper coming from it. I get that the language initially used by the faculty member was somewhat misleading, but students also need to develop an understanding of what is reasonable in terms of expectations.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Re: last author as mentor... I've seen this in more "health connected" subfields (rehab, neuro, health, peds), but not consistently, and I'd say it's not used much in even these subfields outsides of AMCs. In other fields of psych, straight linear authorship is used and expected.

 

[Ollie123]

Interesting. Had no idea some psych depts didn't operate on first/last. Every place I have been affiliated with recognized last as equivalent to first. I've asked to be bumped from second to last on a couple occasions in situations when it made sense.

While this stinks, in the context of an otherwise supportive mentor I am inclined to chalk this up as a genuine miscommunication and not something blatantly unethical. The APA guidelines are very clear that mentors can't steal anyone's dissertation, but its actually quite vague about other situations. This doesn't sound like a thesis/dissertation project per se, though some of this doesn't add up. A true 200-person RCT is typically going to cost well into the millions of dollars to run. Even doing one "on the cheap" is unlikely to be possible without one, even off an unusually generous startup package (especially a junior faculty startup package). Usually that means grant funding, in which case I'm not sure why its still in the study design stage. Although I guess some people are doing pseudo-RCTs using online panels with automated interventions and the like, so that might be the case here.

OP - While I empathize, I wouldn't stress about this if everything else is OK. If this is a true 200-person RCT, it should be fairly easy to generate at least 5-10 more publications off it and 20+ would not be unusual. In short, there will be oodles of other opportunities. The faculty member could/should lead a paper of that scope unless they are at that point in their career they no longer have to give a damn. They should have made this clear sooner, but if it otherwise seems like they are trying to do right by you I wouldn't get too up in arms about this. Like others have said, I would use it as a negotiation point to get authorship on other things.

 

[deleted343839]

PSYDR said it succinctly and well. Assuming things are going well otherwise, I think you take this as a lesson learned and move on. Next time, though, have the authorship conversation right up front and document it.

Interesting. Had no idea some psych depts didn't operate on first/last. Every place I have been affiliated with recognized last as equivalent to first. I've asked to be bumped from second to last on a couple occasions in situations when it made sense.

Same. First and senior authorship >>> middle authorship everywhere I've worked. But everywhere I've worked is an AMC.

And our university eventually specifically forbade profs from taking first authorship on their students' dissertations (there were a couple serial offenders across different departments, I believe).

I was horrified when I found out that an older faculty member in my department just flat out didn't "believe in" first authorships for graduate student work, with the exception of the dissertation. He also objected to submitting any data for publication before the dissertation defense because it supposedly "pre-empted" the committee's decision.

 

[Ollie123]

Same. First and senior authorship >>> middle authorship everywhere I've worked. But everywhere I've worked is an AMC.

I'm AMC-based, but was actually explicitly referring to psychology departments in said universities I have been affiliated with (from undergrad on up through now). Maybe its an R1 thing (not sure where others are based)? I find it tough to imagine any place where folks are expected to pull in major grant funding not operating on this model since I imagine most NIH grant reviewers are sensitized to look for first/last.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Interesting. Had no idea some psych depts didn't operate on first/last. Every place I have been affiliated with recognized last as equivalent to first. I've asked to be bumped from second to last on a couple occasions in situations when it made sense.

When I mentioned the last-author as senior/mentor thing to classmates and faculty in my masters department (coming from a rehab psych background where it was sometimes used), they looked at me like I grew three heads. In my current department, we were explicitly told that it's first author versus everything else in terms of how much things are weighted for a tenure file. A collaborator (who is excellent enough at research that she literally asked a specific university if she could have a full professor, tenured line because she wanted to work there, and they said yes, with no questions asked, to give you some context) is an MD currently working a psych department, and she actually has a line on her CV explaining that is in medicine, last author is good.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

...I was horrified when I found out that an older faculty member in my department just flat out didn't "believe in" first authorships for graduate student work, with the exception of the dissertation. He also objected to submitting any data for publication before the dissertation defense because it supposedly "pre-empted" the committee's decision.

That's crappy. I want to say a faculty member in my old program took first authorship on dissertations until being explicitly forbade, but that's more hearsay, as it wasn't the practice when I was there. I know there was concern in other (non-psychology) departments as well; I heard some horror stories from STEM.

 

[Ollie123]

When I mentioned the last-author as senior/mentor thing to classmates and faculty in my masters department (coming from a rehab psych background where it was sometimes used), they looked at me like I grew three heads. In my current department, we were explicitly told that it's first author versus everything else in terms of how much things are weighted for a tenure file. A collaborator (who is excellent enough at research that she literally asked a specific university if she could have a full professor, tenured line because she wanted to work there, and they said yes, with no questions asked, to give you some context) is an MD currently working a psych department, and she actually has a line on her CV explaining that is in medicine, last author is good.

So funny - its just been a given in the departments I've worked that faculty take last author on student papers. I just can't envision otherwise. Would be nice if at least all the health-related fields could get on the same page, as I guarantee this issue has hurt someone during NIH grant applications.

Bit of a tangent, but the differences in conventions across fields is going to get more weird/complicated as we grow more interdisciplinary. I think one basic science field (Physics? Math?) is alphabetical. My comp sci/engineering colleagues don't even want to submit papers because conference presentations/proceedings are better whereas most health fields these count for basically nothing. I have one conference proceeding I don't know what to do with on my CV (don't want to put it with publications in case someone thinks I'm being dishonest, don't want to put it with presentations because its basically equivalent to a top-tier journal article, seems silly to create a whole separate section just for it...).

 

[Mad Jack]

Interesting. Had no idea some psych depts didn't operate on first/last. Every place I have been affiliated with recognized last as equivalent to first. I've asked to be bumped from second to last on a couple occasions in situations when it made sense.

While this stinks, in the context of an otherwise supportive mentor I am inclined to chalk this up as a genuine miscommunication and not something blatantly unethical. The APA guidelines are very clear that mentors can't steal anyone's dissertation, but its actually quite vague about other situations. This doesn't sound like a thesis/dissertation project per se, though some of this doesn't add up. A true 200-person RCT is typically going to cost well into the millions of dollars to run. Even doing one "on the cheap" is unlikely to be possible without one, even off an unusually generous startup package (especially a junior faculty startup package). Usually that means grant funding, in which case I'm not sure why its still in the study design stage. Although I guess some people are doing pseudo-RCTs using online panels with automated interventions and the like, so that might be the case here.

OP - While I empathize, I wouldn't stress about this if everything else is OK. If this is a true 200-person RCT, it should be fairly easy to generate at least 5-10 more publications off it and 20+ would not be unusual. In short, there will be oodles of other opportunities. The faculty member could/should lead a paper of that scope unless they are at that point in their career they no longer have to give a damn. They should have made this clear sooner, but if it otherwise seems like they are trying to do right by you I wouldn't get too up in arms about this. Like others have said, I would use it as a negotiation point to get authorship on other things.

I also had no idea other fields didn't use first/last authorship, my mind is blown

 

[Justanothergrad]

So funny - its just been a given in the departments I've worked that faculty take last author on student papers. I just can't envision otherwise. Would be nice if at least all the health-related fields could get on the same page, as I guarantee this issue has hurt someone during NIH grant applications.

Bit of a tangent, but the differences in conventions across fields is going to get more weird/complicated as we grow more interdisciplinary. I think one basic science field (Physics? Math?) is alphabetical. My comp sci/engineering colleagues don't even want to submit papers because conference presentations/proceedings are better whereas most health fields these count for basically nothing. I have one conference proceeding I don't know what to do with on my CV (don't want to put it with publications in case someone thinks I'm being dishonest, don't want to put it with presentations because its basically equivalent to a top-tier journal article, seems silly to create a whole separate section just for it...).

I still have no idea what a conference proceeding even is. Like, zero ideas.

 

[Ollie123]

Having now co-authored one, I will tell you

I still have no idea what a conference proceeding even is. Like, zero ideas.

Having now co-authored one I will tell you.

It is a very elongated abstract (really more like a brief report, ~10 page paper) that gets heavily peer-reviewed like a paper and a small subset of which (I think ~10% for where ours went) are accepted to a highly competitive conference. It may or may not come out in print or be copyedited, but invariably lands in some place like biorxiv.

That's if you are in comp sci/engineering. If you are in a health field, it means you wrote 250 words that someone looked at and was like "Ehhh...vaguely related to mental health and is mostly comprised of actual words. At least a poster...maybe a talk?"....and then it gets published in whatever society's journal.

 

[calimich]

Same. First and senior authorship >>> middle authorship everywhere I've worked. But everywhere I've worked is an AMC.

I'm AMC-based, but was actually explicitly referring to psychology departments in said universities I have been affiliated with (from undergrad on up through now). Maybe its an R1 thing (not sure where others are based)?

This is how we operate in my department, at a selective liberal arts college teaching mostly undergrads. I've really enjoyed mentoring students through the process and seeing their joy in being first author and our rank & tenure committee looks for evidence of this kind of student-prof collaboration.

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

I worked on a paper with my mentor and another person that was an abstract for NAN which then was submitted to Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. I had left the institution; despite my significant contributions, they left me off the manuscript.

Similar situation happened with me when I was still a student.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

When I was still in school, I was promised first authorship on a paper. The entire paper was written, with my name as first (I had my MA at the time) and MDs and PhDs from my institution followed as agreed because I wrote the whole paper and they contributed data. We sent the paper to another institution with whom we collaborated on the study for proofreading (I am not going to say what institution, but it is one everyone knows). The two of the three MDs sent back “looks good” with no changes. The last one? Wrote her name as first author. All of a sudden mine was second. The PI from my institution didn’t want to piss off that big name place so it got published that way. I am second author on that and I wrote the whole paper.

But now I won’t let that happen to any of my students and it sure doesn’t happen to me now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted343839]

The PI from my institution didn’t want to piss off that big name place so it got published that way. I am second author on that and I wrote the whole paper.

But now I won’t let that happen to any of my students and it sure doesn’t happen to me now.

Good for you. That really sucks. Your PI was a spineless coward.

 

[Ollie123]

Good for you. That really sucks. Your PI was a spineless coward.

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Actually the most egregious case I've heard (by a long shot). In that scenario I would have strongly considered refusing to let it be sent in and/or reporting directly to the journal even if my PI wouldn't, consequences be damned (not that I'm necessarily saying this would have been a smart move).

 

[pediatric_psydoc]

Yeah, that's pretty crazy. Actually the most egregious case I've heard (by a long shot). In that scenario I would have strongly considered refusing to let it be sent in and/or reporting directly to the journal even if my PI wouldn't, consequences be damned (not that I'm necessarily saying this would have been a smart move).

I understand where you’re coming from. I was a graduate student at the time. I had my first practicum at that institution and 2 years of research experience there on top of the one year of practicum. It was my third publication and I ended up having a total of 6 with that PI; I am first author on 3 of the publications. That PI and the psychologist who supervised me for practicum both subsequently wrote me LOR for internship. That psychologist is board certified in the field which in I currently practice and the field in which I plan on pursuing board certification once I am two years post licensure.

All of those factors were in the forefront when I made the decision to let it go and permit the submission. As you see, I had a lot potentially to lose by reporting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[futureapppsy2]

In grad school, I co-initiated a study, conducted all the analyses, wrote the entire manuscript, did all the revisions, and even did the proofs for an article that I'm second author on. Should I have been first author by, well, any metric? Yep. But my collaborator on the study was/is a close friend and collaborator, so I let it go. In my experience, authorship places aren't worth burning professional bridges over. Leaving someone out of an indisputably earned authorship, on the other hand, would be really questionable to me.

 

[Kay Michael]

Thank you all for sharing your insights. On reflection, I've decided that I'm still incredibly fortunate to have this particular mentor. Unfortunate miscommunications aside, it makes perfect sense for me to be second author. It is actually a privilege and will be a huge learning opportunity. I had a really good follow-up conversation with my mentor in which I made it clear that I want us to be a team in ways that are truly mutually beneficial, so I'm therefore excited to put in the heavy lifting for us on this project. I also expressed my initial surprise and disappointment in reaction to some of the miscommunications I described in my original post, and I made some specific requests for clearer early communication moving forward, for us to brainstorm how I might be able to get at least one first-authored publication out of this project, and for us to consider whether it might be possible for my time spent with participants to count toward supervised client contact hours. I also took this as an opportunity to underscore my goals to land an R1 tenure track position down the line.

My mentor received all of this very well, saying it was totally reasonable for me to have interpreted their phrasing to mean I was going to be first-author and therefore also totally reasonable for me to feel surprised and disappointed now. They appreciated me being a team player while also being direct and honest in how I had experienced this situation. A few days after this conversation and after I turned in a solid draft of the introduction section for our RCT article, my mentor offered me first author on two upcoming projects and two upcoming poster presentations, in addition to sending me an email proposing an additional article I could first-author using the data from the RCT. (As I said, a really solid mentor and a really solid relationship.)

Thank you all for helping me look at this from multiple points of view. I appreciate some of the posters who felt like there was a big ethical violation here, but I'm now fairly sure it is all above board and I would have been wildly misguided to do anything other than say an enthusiastic "Yes, please. And thank you!"

As for the questions regarding the details of the RCT and how this whole thing makes sense without a large grant (which you were right to infer is not the case), I assure you there are answers that would help clear up any confusion. Respectfully, however, I'm going to keep those details out of this thread to avoid any possibility of folks eventually determining my or my mentor's identities.

As an aside, I wish our field was more consistent with using the first/last author system described above by a few folks. In my experience, some PI's do take the last author spot in psychology but primarily only once they have gotten tenure and are really well established in their area of interest. Until then, my impression is that last authorship doesn't carry a lot of weight, but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, thanks again! This was my first post and I'm feeling really grateful for this community.

-Kay

 

[Ollie123]

Sounds like this worked out well for you! Very glad to hear it. Sounds like the faculty member handled that conversation about the best anyone could possibly hope for in this situation.

I do think its helpful to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in these situations. While egregious conduct unquestionably occurs, I think the vast majority are simple miscommunications and misunderstandings. Its fine to be upset, but its a lot better to have productive conversations about it then invent a story in your head about an evil dictator and otherwise go from 0 to 100 in 2 seconds (which I saw folks do on multiple occasions in grad school) about what was likely an error in their part.

Remember that faculty (and especially junior faculty) are figuring this out as they go too and every trainee comes in with a different set of expectations, knowledge base, etc. Miscommunications are unavoidable. Mistakes are unavoidable. Very, very few faculty are going to look to actively screw over students and many/most will go out of their way to look after them and help them build successful careers. Its easy for it not to feel that way when you are in the heat of it with pressing deadlines, exams, people breathing down your neck...but I genuinely believe it to be true.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Agreed that I'm glad it worked out well, and also agreed that especially in situations like this (i.e., early in the mentor/mentee relationship), benefit of the doubt generally seems warranted. Miscommunications about authorship are pretty common, so silver lining: you now know even more about what to look for in the future, and how to address the issue if it's not initially handled super well.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thank you all for sharing your insights. On reflection, I've decided that I'm still incredibly fortunate to have this particular mentor. Unfortunate miscommunications aside, it makes perfect sense for me to be second author. It is actually a privilege and will be a huge learning opportunity. I had a really good follow-up conversation with my mentor in which I made it clear that I want us to be a team in ways that are truly mutually beneficial, so I'm therefore excited to put in the heavy lifting for us on this project. I also expressed my initial surprise and disappointment in reaction to some of the miscommunications I described in my original post, and I made some specific requests for clearer early communication moving forward, for us to brainstorm how I might be able to get at least one first-authored publication out of this project, and for us to consider whether it might be possible for my time spent with participants to count toward supervised client contact hours. I also took this as an opportunity to underscore my goals to land an R1 tenure track position down the line.

My mentor received all of this very well, saying it was totally reasonable for me to have interpreted their phrasing to mean I was going to be first-author and therefore also totally reasonable for me to feel surprised and disappointed now. They appreciated me being a team player while also being direct and honest in how I had experienced this situation. A few days after this conversation and after I turned in a solid draft of the introduction section for our RCT article, my mentor offered me first author on two upcoming projects and two upcoming poster presentations, in addition to sending me an email proposing an additional article I could first-author using the data from the RCT. (As I said, a really solid mentor and a really solid relationship.)

Thank you all for helping me look at this from multiple points of view. I appreciate some of the posters who felt like there was a big ethical violation here, but I'm now fairly sure it is all above board and I would have been wildly misguided to do anything other than say an enthusiastic "Yes, please. And thank you!"

As for the questions regarding the details of the RCT and how this whole thing makes sense without a large grant (which you were right to infer is not the case), I assure you there are answers that would help clear up any confusion. Respectfully, however, I'm going to keep those details out of this thread to avoid any possibility of folks eventually determining my or my mentor's identities.

As an aside, I wish our field was more consistent with using the first/last author system described above by a few folks. In my experience, some PI's do take the last author spot in psychology but primarily only once they have gotten tenure and are really well established in their area of interest. Until then, my impression is that last authorship doesn't carry a lot of weight, but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, thanks again! This was my first post and I'm feeling really grateful for this community.

-Kay

This is a great outcome.

I would encourage you to reflect on this often as you move forward in your career and I encourage you to mirror this sort of openness to graduate student feedback when you get into a position of power in academia.