First-first author vs second-first author

[tiedyeddog]

How do co-author first authorships actually look, especially to PDs and PIs?

I am going to be a second first author, with equal contributions to the first-first author (which I am very disappointed in, I thought I was going to get to be the first author but that's another story. ) Does being a co-first author actually look like a first authorship in the scientific world? Am I just a glorified second author?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gbwillner]

How do co-author first authorships actually look, especially to PDs and PIs?

I am going to be a second first author, with equal contributions to the first-first author (which I am very disappointed in, I thought I was going to get to be the first author but that's another story. ) Does being a co-first author actually look like a first authorship in the scientific world? Am I just a glorified second author?

It depends.

You can certainly sell it that way, and most will take your word for it. But when someone searches for your paper, your name is second, and that is for all time. For some people you will just be a glorified second author. At your stage, I think this is quite an accomplishment and will be a huge positive.

 

[Spacedman]

How do co-author first authorships actually look, especially to PDs and PIs?

I am going to be a second first author, with equal contributions to the first-first author (which I am very disappointed in, I thought I was going to get to be the first author but that's another story. ) Does being a co-first author actually look like a first authorship in the scientific world? Am I just a glorified second author?

pro-tip: when you're submitting your CV to programs, boldface your name and use an oversized asterisk as follows:

Jetson E*, Spaceman J*, Greengard P, Mellow A, Steitz T. This is awesome. Science, 2013. *Contributed equally

Obviously, if your published in a first tier journal, I'd bolditalicizeunderline that as well.

when people are reviewing your application, they will usually read it your pub list in the format you present rather than going to pubmed. Joint first authorship is such a widespread practice now that most interpret it as a major contribution to a paper. It's still not first first, but at your stage it's essentially irrelevant.

I've heard some people suggest that it's acceptable to switch the order of equally contributin authors for the purposes of a CV, but I would strongly recommend against it.

 

[MSTPlease]

I've heard some people suggest that it's acceptable to switch the order of equally contributin authors for the purposes of a CV, but I would strongly recommend against it.

The research ethics class (mandated by the NIH) at my school explicitly mentioned that this is not acceptable. Unfortunately you just have to deal with the fact that you are 2nd first author. Many people will acknowledge you as first author, some may not.

As was mentioned in spacedman's post, feel free to do whatever bolding/underlining/asterisking/font sizing is necessary to highlight that you are co-first author and not 2nd author, but you have to leave the other person's name first always.

 

[tiedyeddog]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your responses! I am still disappointed in how this worked out but your responses have cheered me up a bit.

 

[gutonc]

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your responses! I am still disappointed in how this worked out but your responses have cheered me up a bit.

Dude...any author paper puts you in a good position. I agree with bolding your name and "these authors contributed equally" as well as your name on any other pubs or presentations you put on your app. It brings attention to you in a subtle and reasonable way.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Until they replace the comma with an equals sign and it becomes acceptable to cite the paper with the co-first authors names exchanged, the category of co-first author remains glorified second author.

 

[Shifty B]

I've long been irritated by this "co-first author" crap. I hate it because it brings up so many issues:

1. It's far overused. Rarely do 2 people actually contribute the same to a paper. Most of the time it is a cop-out by the PI, who doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings. This could all be avoided if authorship was clear when someone started writing a paper. In those rare cases when contributions are equal, then I guess it's ok but most of the time it's not.

2. It leads to this CV confusion. It doesn't matter when you have 50 papers but for a grad student who may have 2-3 it ends up being a big deal. The best solution if you have only a few papers is what is described above. Once you have more you can drop it and you will forever be 2nd. Oh well. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SWITCH THE ORDER. If someone looks it up and can't find it that's just going to arouse suspicion.

This is really the PIs fault. Decide who needs to be in charge and make them first-first. Everyone else is not.

 

[tiedyeddog]

Dude...any author paper puts you in a good position.

I know, I am just disappointed my expectations for what I was promised would happen did not. This isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, I understand.

 

[tiedyeddog]

1. It's far overused. Rarely do 2 people actually contribute the same to a paper. Most of the time it is a cop-out by the PI, who doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings. This could all be avoided if authorship was clear when someone started writing a paper. In those rare cases when contributions are equal, then I guess it's ok but most of the time it's not.

2. It leads to this CV confusion. It doesn't matter when you have 50 papers but for a grad student who may have 2-3 it ends up being a big deal. The best solution if you have only a few papers is what is described above. Once you have more you can drop it and you will forever be 2nd. Oh well. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SWITCH THE ORDER. If someone looks it up and can't find it that's just going to arouse suspicion.

This is really the PIs fault. Decide who needs to be in charge and make them first-first. Everyone else is not.

Totally agreed with the bolded. This paper is a collaboration with another lab and apparently my PI wasn't agressive in establishing who should do the writing and backed down when the collaborator demanded the order be changed. This has nothing to do with who has the biggest contribution and everything to do with politics.

This will be 5+ papers for me (only 1 first first review and 1 second author basic science along with first-second author...) which I know is great for someone at my level, but still, the politics in academia just sucks sometimes.

 

[gutonc]

This will be 5+ papers for me (only 1 first first review and 1 second author basic science along with first-second author...) which I know is great for someone at my level, but still, the politics in academia just sucks sometimes.

#firstworldproblems
#GunnyMcGunnerson

And if this is as bad as academic politics gets for you, you're going to live a charmed life in the ivory tower.

 

[tiedyeddog]

#firstworldproblems
#GunnyMcGunnerson

And if this is as bad as academic politics gets for you, you're going to live a charmed life in the ivory tower.

ok, point taken.

 

[ratherbefishing]

Agree with all above. Your PIs letter can also clarify that your contributions were significant.

 

[brooklynblunder]

does a 2nd co-first author manuscript count as first authored manuscript for graduate school?

 

[Fencer]

If it is co-first author publication, it does not matter who was first for applications to MD/PhD or PhD school, it counts as 1st author.