Does my name needs to be on the first author or my research professor's?

[libraryismyhome]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, I have been volunteering in this research lab for 2 years and will be doing another year to completely finish my project.

Once my project is done, my research prof said that I would be able to publish this to pubmed since there are a lot of new discoveries to write about.

I wonder whether I should be the first author or the second author.
This project was my research prof's idea, and when we are going to write a paper, I am going to write a rough draft(which is not good) and it is going to be fixed by my research prof.

However, I did every experiment and gathered the data that he and other researchers were previously unable to get.

Do you think I should have the first author placement or just the second author? Do you think it would cause friction between him and I, if I persuade my prof to give me the first authorship??

I would be still happy with the second authorship, but if I deserve the first author then why not have it? 🙂

 

[d1ony5u5]

mmm, this is always a thorny issue. Usually the PI is expected to take senior authorship (last name on the list), unless it is a very short paper/review and there is no point to seniority because things are so straight forward...

I think it is really hard to judge with the limited info you provided. 1st authorship is always better in terms of impressing adcoms and building your resume, but not worth the fight if your PI is set on not letting you have it. That will just destroy you because you can't publish without him/her, and the relationship could definitely sour only to your detriment (he/she doesn't need you for anything other than performing experiments that another clever undergrad could do with just a bit of training).

Are other members of the lab involved? If a postdoc was involved, it is more beneficial to the PI to give him/her 1st authorship, and needless to say to the postdoc. Second would come grad students, the closer to graduation the more important for them to become 1st authors.

The only thing that I can say with the info you give, is that unless it is absolutely clear that you did everything, wrote up the paper, were in charge of editing/correcting it, and were also involved in the intellectual process of the research, chances are you'll get 2nd or other authorship. Not tremendously fair, but it is kind of understood that as a student (I assume you are an undergrad), you are trading that kind of thing for the opportunity to learn the workings of research.

I suggest going really cautiously about trying to get your name as 1st author, and see where that takes you. If you get it, superb, if not, you won't be pissing people off...

Good luck!

 

[tiedyeddog]

The PI is always last. A first authorship for a tenure-track professor would probably hurt him/her... They're supposed to be directing the research while someone under them conducts it.

I have read ~500-600 different research articles and never seen a P.I. listed before someone under him/her. I really think it would look bad for a P.I. to be a first author, it would look like they actually did the experiments which is not the point of being a professor. The only time this changes is when a review article is being written. However, this clearly does not apply to your case. Research articles are summations of a field, they present no new data.

However, if some bizarre situation is occurring where the P.I. wants to list him/herself as the first author then there is nothing you can do about it. The P.I. determines authorship rank. You can mention you think you should be a first author but don't be pissy about it. Thats a good way to get a horrible recommendation letter from a P.I. who would otherwise write an amazing one, considering the amount of work you did.

I'm kind of in disbelief that someone could do enough work for a first authorship, be the only one doing experiments on the project, and still wonder if the P.I. will try to list her/himself as a first author.... Have you read many research articles or what?! How are you writing the introduction?

 

[brooklynblunder]

The PI is always last. A first authorship for a tenure-track professor would probably hurt him/her... They're supposed to be directing the research while someone under them conducts it.

I have read ~500-600 different research articles and never seen P.I. listed before someone under him/her. I really think it would look bad for a P.I. to be a first author, it would look like they actually did the experiments which is not the point of being a professor. The only time this changes is when a review article is being written. However, this clearly does not apply to your case. Research articles are summations of a field, they present no new data.

However, if some bizarre situation is occurring where the P.I. wants to list him/herself as the first author then there is nothing you can do about it. The P.I. determines authorship rank.

I'm kind of in disbelieve that someone could do enough work for a first authorship, be the only one doing experiments on the project, and still wonder if the P.I. will try to list her/himself as a first author.... Have you read many research articles or what?! How are you writing the introduction?

i was wondering this too

 

[schrizto]

See what your PI decides, if you're unsatisfied with the decision then talk.

I'd agree with tiedyedog. I've read a couple research articles and the pattern in authorship is pretty evident, with the PI always listed last. If you're that involved in research you should know.

 

[tiedyeddog]

I'd agree with tiedyedog. I've read a couple research articles and the pattern in authorship is pretty evident, with the PI always listed last. If you're that involved in research you should know.

I didn't want to outright say it, haha.

 

[d1ony5u5]

A PI putting themselves as 1st authors is not unheard of. Not the norm, but not unheard of. What have you been reading?

There are many PI's that for one reason or another like to do experiments themselves. If they do most of the experiments for a paper, as well as the guidance (which is their primary purpose, but not only purpose), they are free to take 1st authorship. Another reason for a PI being 1st author is when they have a sabbatical and go learn techniques in other labs for some time. In this rarer case, they are expected to take 1st authorship.

I do admit that it is uncommon, but it happens. Having a 1st author paper never hurts you at any point in your career. It just stops being important after a while. This is a weird misconception you have...

 

[libraryismyhome]

ok it's not that I am so greedy and desperately want everything. I was just ignorant and curious, so I just wanted to ask here before I ask my research prof.

My part of this research project was just doing experiments and getting results. Every editing/correcting and intellectual process were from my research prof. I read several papers to understand what's going on and everything though. Guess I wasn't aware of those author placements and had to check them before asking this question. So, according to you guys, he will be on the last then.

There are two other people who are involved in this project. One is a another research professor who actually does experiments. He taught me techniques, so I could do them on my own. Then I got my results. We are planning on another experiment to further support my results then we can publish a paper. Then I guess he will be the first author?

There is a grad student who is doing experiments less important than mine, and he hasn't even gotten his results yet. It is possible to publish without including his experiments. However, if he gets his results then will he be the second author even though his part of research is not as important as mine?

 

[tiedyeddog]

A PI putting themselves as 1st authors is not unheard of. Not the norm, but not unheard of. What have you been reading?

There are many PI's that for one reason or another like to do experiments themselves. If they do most of the experiments for a paper, as well as the guidance (which is their primary purpose, but not only purpose), they are free to take 1st authorship. Another reason for a PI being 1st author is when they have a sabbatical and go learn techniques in other labs for some time. In this rarer case, they are expected to take 1st authorship.

A P.I. can't go on sabbatical...... He/she is no longer the P.I. at whatever lab they do their sabbatical at. She/he is a visiting scientist at that point and someone else is the P.I.

Go ahead and reference a research article where the P.I. is the first author and other authors follow after that.

Indeed, I have seen papers where the P.I. is the only author and that does defacto make them the first author.... and the last author...

 

[schrizto]

There is a grad student who is doing experiments less important than mine, and he hasn't even gotten his results yet. It is possible to publish without including his experiments. However, if he gets his results then will he be the second author even though his part of research is not as important as mine?

Ok, not to be a jerk here, but how do you know your experiments are "more important" than the grad student's?

 

[tiedyeddog]

There is a grad student who is doing experiments less important than mine, and he hasn't even gotten his results yet. It is possible to publish without including his experiments. However, if he gets his results then will he be the second author even though his part of research is not as important as mine?

Most P.I.'s try to determine the authorship based on intellectual contribution, not manual work. For example, often there are techs in labs that make PAGE gels, and prep media, and pour plates... However, they mostly don't get authorship, due to not contributing intellectually.

So, to sum it up, it is the P.I.'s duty to determine intellectual contribution in a fair manner. However, it is not uncommon for P.I.'s to be unfair about it. I have seen it a couple times in my own lab! Most of the time the person who did all the work also did most of the intellectual contribution, so they are almost always the one and the same, auto first author.

Edit: think of it this way. It is easy as hell to teach someone to run a gel, do a western blot, do a PCR, etc, etc. The hard part is analyzing the data. Who analyzed the data, based on previous scientific groundwork seen in the literature?

 

[d1ony5u5]

A P.I. can't go on sabbatical...... He/she is no longer the P.I. She/he is a visiting scientist at that point and someone else is the P.I.

Go ahead and most up an article where the P.I. is the first author and other authors follow after that.

Indeed, I have seen papers where the P.I. is the only author and that does defacto make them the first author.... and the last author...

I suppose you are technically right in that sense... Visiting scholar instead of PI.

Don't get all sensitive on me for correcting you. As you yourself admitted, and I indicated in my first post here, there are odd cases in which it happens. Apparently "500-600" research papers is not enough to figure out some simple facts of research. Read some more, friend.

Let's refocus on trying to answer the OP's question, shall we?

PS. I do agree with what you just posted above. Intellectual effort 1st and then to some extent performance of the experiments themselves.

 

[tiedyeddog]

Don't get all sensitive on me for correcting you. As you yourself admitted, and I indicated in my first post here, there are odd cases in which it happens. Apparently "500-600" research papers is not enough to figure out some simple facts of research

You have not yet corrected me. Show me an article like you say and I will beg for forgiveness.

 

[libraryismyhome]

Because this project is about

 

[d1ony5u5]

Jeez... tiedyeddog, you are wrong in thinking that it actually hurts someone to have a 1st author paper after a certain point in their career.

Take it as you like. I'm not going to do any digging just to prove something plain to you. If you keep reading research papers as you claim you do, you'll come up with some you'll be hard pressed to explain by the rationale you have exposed here.

OP: it is completely up to the PI to decide authorship. It does sound like you deserve to be up there in the 1st from the very limited info you've provided. However, academia is extremely political and you could end up with less. Just try to be very delicate in discussing these issues with anyone in your lab, and expose your arguments logically. If the PI acts ethically, which you'd hope he will, you'll probably get what you want. Don't take it personally or be bitter however, if things don't turn out that way. As mentioned above, you'll need this person in the future. A lot more than they'll need you.

 

[tiedyeddog]

Because this project is about an enzyme kinetics, and my experiments are about measuring the kinetics of this mutant enzyme while his experiment is about picturing the active site by doing crystallography. Not that I am belittling, but it's quite obvious.

Alright, so give us more background here. Have you talked to your P.I. about authorship? What did he/she say? If you haven't, talk BEFORE you give him/her the manuscript.

In general, however, the first author is the one who writes up the paper. The others might just add little sections or proofread. P.I.'s almost always proofread papers because the work contained in them is a reflection of the P.I.'s work, too.

 

[ReptarBar]

i did clinical research with a doctor and am about to publish (first one). i wrote the entire manuscript...should i be first author? the experiment was her idea.

 

[d1ony5u5]

Reptabar, not very sure about clinical research conventions, but from your post it sounds like you should. Virtually all content in nearly all research papers are originally the idea of the PI. How much work you put into it, intellectually and otherwise in comparison with others involved in the project is what determines your rank.

 

[Doodledog]

The PI is always last. A first authorship for a tenure-track professor would probably hurt him/her... They're supposed to be directing the research while someone under them conducts it.

I have read ~500-600 different research articles and never seen a P.I. listed before someone under him/her. I really think it would look bad for a P.I. to be a first author, it would look like they actually did the experiments which is not the point of being a professor. The only time this changes is when a review article is being written. However, this clearly does not apply to your case. Research articles are summations of a field, they present no new data.

With all due respect, I am a P.I. by any definition of the term, am the author of a fair number of papers and an associate editor of a medical journal responsible for handling a substantial number of manuscripts/year. In the classic academic pattern, the faculty member is the last author. However, there are a range of situations in which the faculty member may be the first author or the second author on a paper. This is not uncommon and certainly is not viewed badly by promotions committees (I have served in that role as well).

I personally conduct and interpret without grad students or post-docs some of my own studies and therefore write some of them up with myself as a first author. The technical staff who assist are the later authors. Although I have post-docs, I do not use them to conduct every study that I perform. It is very common for a junior faculty member to do the same thing especially when they have a first grant and cannot afford numerous grad students or post-docs. Another situation is when two labs collaborate or when data are shared between labs. There are other scenarios as well in which the P.I. will be the first author with others coming afterwards.

In any case, tenure committees do not expect that all of a P.I. faculty member's original research or even most of it will be done by a grad student or post-doc and many faculty will write up their own research as first author.

 

[libraryismyhome]

Alright, so give us more background here. Have you talked to your P.I. about authorship? What did he/she say? If you haven't, talk BEFORE you give him/her the manuscript.

In general, however, the first author is the one who writes up the paper. The others might just add little sections or proofread. P.I.'s almost always proofread papers because the work contained in them is a reflection of the P.I.'s work, too.

Project: Kinetics of enzyme catalysis which involves proton transfer and expanding a theory about proton transfer reaction to enzymic environment

Prof A: designed the project, taught me every conceptual knowledge and will edit/correct my manuscript

Prof B: taught me experiment A and will be doing experiment B with me to further support my data

Me: performed experiment A and gathered the data needed to expand this theory to enzymic environment, will be doing experiment B with Prof B to complete this project, and will write a manuscript (rough draft)
So far, all I need to add are the results from the experiment B.

Grad student: still working on experiment C which shows the structure of the active site of this enzyme

 

[WhizoMD]

Because this project is about.......

be careful with the details you give......you never know who might be reading this

 

[tiedyeddog]

i did clinical research with a doctor and am about to publish (first one). i wrote the entire manuscript...should i be first author? the experiment was her idea.

Look above. The same applies, but I'm not totally sure about clinical research. I only have experience with basic research.

Did you're P.I. talk to your about authorships? If not, talk to him/her.

I'd say in 99% of cases, the PhD comes up with the idea of a project. It is his/her job, actually. That is what most PhDs who run labs do. It is his/her money and his/her career depends on it. Paper authorship is hardly ever who comes up with the idea first, but I guess it some cases could.....

Intellectual contribution is something like this: A experiment went wrong. Who came up with the idea to fix it? Who designed the controls? Who determined the amounts of reagents to be used?

Ok, so I am very familiar with molecular bio, the OP's field. Who designed the primers, who ordered the primers, who designed the PCR reagent amounts, who optimized the PCR, who did the subcloning, who expressed/optimized expression conditions for the protein, who purified the protein, who optimized conditions for crystal formation, who shot the protein crystals, who then fit the coordinate spheres, who ran the kinetic assays, who made the graphs the results, who analyzed the graphs and gave up with an idea of what they mean and what they contribute to the field?

You get me, right?

 

[tiedyeddog]

I personally conduct and interpret without grad students or post-docs some of my own studies and therefore write some of them up with myself as a first author. The technical staff who assist are the later authors. Although I have post-docs, I do not use them to conduct every study that I perform.

Alright, I cant argue with a P.I.

Just wondering, but why not in this case above put the technical staff first and keep yourself as the last author?