Don't deserve authorship: talking about it during interviews

[Endoxifen]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So, I had an interesting meeting today. I met with a professor who had been trying to get into contact with someone from my dept (neurosurgery) to help her finish a paper FOR YEARS. She needed a lot of patient data and statistical analysis done, but she didn't have clearance to get it herself. I offered to help and she said, "if you do this for me and write the paper, you're first author." I told her she didn't have to do that, but she insisted. Obviously I'm not going to refuse, but I feel like this is highway robbery. How can I possibly take credit for doing so little work on such a big paper (wet bench that took years of work). During interviews, I don't want to downplay a paper, but anything less seems like a lie. Any advice?

 

[Poit]

I think they'd definitely give you points for your honesty. Statistical analysis for published papers isn't something that a lot of pre-meds get to do, and will be a great thing to talk about during your interviews. Congrats on the authorship.

 

[mw18]

If you do it and you write the paper, why would you not be the first author? You wrote the paper? If the project has a bunch of junior people on it then I could see you being caught in a dilemma. But if the person you spoke with did the rest of the work, it's not outrageous for you to be the first author and she's the senior author on the paper.

 

[Endoxifen]

If you do it and you write the paper, why would you not be the first author? You wrote the paper? If the project has a bunch of junior people on it then I could see you being caught in a dilemma. But if the person you spoke with did the rest of the work, it's not outrageous for you to be the first author and she's the senior author on the paper.

It makes sense, it just seems a bit disingenuous, as if I were taking credit for her work.

 

[Psai]

Writing the paper makes you a first author
Everyone knows that the last author is the primary investigator

 

[Doctor Strange]

This happens all the time, dude.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using SDN mobile

 

[efle]

People will know the last author was the PI that did a lot of it. Everyone in the middle likely contributed small components, smaller than doing all analysis + the writeup at least. I think it's appropriate to put you first.

 

[mw18]

It makes sense, it just seems a bit disingenuous, as if I were taking credit for her work.

Don't feel disingenuous, just don't misrepresent the situation. When asked about it say that you had the opportunity to learn about performing analysis, making scientific conclusions, and authoring a scientific story. You can say something like "As you know, bench work like this takes years to do, so I wasn't able to start the project. But I was able to join at a critical moment and I was able to play a primary role in putting the paper together." If you feel like you need to clarify and be up front.

 

[Frogger27]

Yeah my PI literally has mounds of projects that have been laying there for years that he tells us to look up, do analysis, and write the paper. Nothing wrong with this at all.

 

[aldol16]

People will know the last author was the PI that did a lot of it. Everyone in the middle likely contributed small components, smaller than doing all analysis + the writeup at least. I think it's appropriate to put you first.

The PI probably did very little of it. People reading papers understand that the PI spot is reserved for the figurehead who might have come up with the original ideas or motivation for the paper but actually did little of the actual work/analysis. The people who came before OP were the ones who did most of the "wet bench" work. So it's a valid concern, although it's common practice for the last person to inherit the project to tie it all up and submit it as first author. People seem to think it's okay because the other people had a chance but never actually finished it - whether it's actually okay is beyond me. But as for authorship guidelines go, it's supposed to be in the order of who contributed most to the work to who contributed least, with the special PI spot(s).

 

[Endoxifen]

The PI probably did very little of it. People reading papers understand that the PI spot is reserved for the figurehead who might have come up with the original ideas or motivation for the paper but actually did little of the actual work/analysis. The people who came before OP were the ones who did most of the "wet bench" work. So it's a valid concern, although it's common practice for the last person to inherit the project to tie it all up and submit it as first author. People seem to think it's okay because the other people had a chance but never actually finished it - whether it's actually okay is beyond me. But as for authorship guidelines go, it's supposed to be in the order of who contributed most to the work to who contributed least, with the special PI spot(s).

Honestly, I think she did it all herself. This was my first time meeting with her, but it almost seemed like she was a post-doc. I didn't know she wasn't until after when I looked her up.

 

[Endoxifen]

Don't feel disingenuous, just don't misrepresent the situation. When asked about it say that you had the opportunity to learn about performing analysis, making scientific conclusions, and authoring a scientific story. You can say something like "As you know, bench work like this takes years to do, so I wasn't able to start the project. But I was able to join at a critical moment and I was able to play a primary role in putting the paper together." If you feel like you need to clarify and be up front.

That's pretty much what I was planning on doing. Thanks for the advice!