first/second/third author; PI ranked last??

[johndoe3344]

So in a recent publication,

The names listed were:
A, B, C, myself, D, PI

The person actually writing the paper is A, which I assume is 1st author. Does this mean the PI is the 6th author?

And does a 4th author publication (in FASEB) mean anything? Is it even worth mentioning in, say, an interview?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[redsquareblack]

So in a recent publication,

The names listed were:
A, B, C, myself, D, PI

The person actually writing the paper is A, which I assume is 1st author. Does this mean the PI is the 6th author?

And does a 4th author publication (in FASEB) mean anything? Is it even worth mentioning in, say, an interview?

PIs are commonly listed last. Thus, last authorship is generally considered a prestigious position.

 

[johndoe3344]

So it's something like

last author > first author > 2nd author > so on...?

and also, is 4th author worth mentioning?

 

[schrizto]

Yeah, the most senior person is usually ranked last, but otherwise the contributers are ranked from first based on the amount they contributed. You can bring up your 4th authorship in an interview but it's not a big deal.

 

[SireSpanky]

Typically, is not a numerical system, but rather a scale that changes from PI's and students. You will see this difference in collaboration papers.

The first authors are usually the graduate students listed in their order of importance to the work of the paper (ie the first student listed contributed the most, the second contributed second most, etc). Then come the post-docs and PIs. These are usually posted in the reverse order of the students associated with the collaboration.

Example:

School A has Student A, Post-Doc A, and PI A.
School B has Student B1, Student B2, Post-doc B, and PI B.

The paper is mostly Student A's work, but all 7 parties are involved. The authorship would likely go:

Student A, Student B1, Student B2, Post-Doc B, Post-Doc A, PI B, PI A.

Now let's say Student B2 did the bulk of the work:

Student B2, Student B1, Student A, Post-Doc A, Post-Doc B, PI A, PI B.

The only real variance you will see is with the post-docs. Some will be listed in with the students, some will be in the middle in reverse importance like the professors, some will be in the middle in order of importance like the students.

As a final note, traditionally the "last" author isn't usually the highest honor on a paper, but rather the corresponding author (who is almost always the last author).

 

[235009]

So it's something like

last author > first author > 2nd author > so on...?

and also, is 4th author worth mentioning?

it's actually first author > 2nd author > last author in order of importance to the publication of that paper.

You can bring up your 4th authorship in an interview but it's not a big deal.

it IS a big deal and you would be an idiot not to bring it up. most MD only applicants don't have any papers at all.

 

[ReptarBar]

lol yea any publication puts you on the top of the research ladder in terms of med admissions.

 

[armybound]

it IS a big deal and you would be an idiot not to bring it up. most MD only applicants don't have any papers at all.

I'd be pretty well prepared to discuss it as if you were the first-author. A lot of times people just get on papers in "meaningless" positions without any real knowledge of the research. If you're going to advertise the fact that you're published, you better know what the research was.

 

[BerlinDude]

The first author is the one who did all the work.

The last author is the senior dude who provided the resources and funding.

Everyone in the middle showed up sporadically while the work was being conducted. However, most applicants don't have even a co-authorship in the middle, so having one puts you ahead of the curve.

 

[Rogue Synapse]

The first author is the one who did all the work.

The last author is the senior dude who provided the resources and funding.

Everyone in the middle showed up sporadically while the work was being conducted. However, most applicants don't have even a co-authorship in the middle, so having one puts you ahead of the curve.

This is the most accurate answer. There is some marginal importance to being second author, but all the other ones in between first and last kind of blend together. Also, maybe half of all medical students applying to residency will even have one publication with their name anywhere in the list, so you are definitely a leg up on the competition for medical admissions.

 

[Jolt21]

This is the most accurate answer. There is some marginal importance to being second author, but all the other ones in between first and last kind of blend together. Also, maybe half of all medical students applying to residency will even have one publication with their name anywhere in the list, so you are definitely a leg up on the competition for medical admissions.

depends on the attitude of the PI (clinical vs. research)

i had a resident come work in our lab, and all he did was write the paper for our biggest project. he did none of the actual work (i DEFINITELY did more), it wasn't his idea, but he did write 85% of the paper (PI wrote the other 15%). his name went first.

we've had heated discussions in my lab about clinical world authorship vs. research world authorship. they both treat them COMPLETELY different.

 

[JJMrK]

There are different formats. I've seen PI first, then the students who did most of the work. I've also seen the student who did the most work listed first and the PI listed last (as the corresponding author). Keep in mind that these formats were from two different papers that came from the same lab. The papers were submitted to different journals though, which makes me think some journals prefer a certain formatting.

 

[armybound]

depends on the attitude of the PI (clinical vs. research)

i had a resident come work in our lab, and all he did was write the paper for our biggest project. he did none of the actual work (i DEFINITELY did more), it wasn't his idea, but he did write 85% of the paper (PI wrote the other 15%). his name went first.

we've had heated discussions in my lab about clinical world authorship vs. research world authorship. they both treat them COMPLETELY different.

first authorship goes to the author, not the person who did the research.

I've done work that other people have written up without even telling me.

 

[Jolt21]

first authorship goes to the author, not the person who did the research.

I've done work that other people have written up without even telling me.

by authorship in the 2 different worlds, i meant the rest of the authors. research labs only putting a few people, where clinical labs put everyone and their mothers.

but yea, in terms of first author, you are right. when BerlinDude said first author did all the work, i was thinking he meant research work. it's a pretty crappy tradeoff. i wish i could write papers easily.

 

[Longshanks]

As LizzyM said a month ago here, what number author you are doesn't matter to adcoms, at least at her institution it doesn't. Also, for the most part, as a student, unless you wrote the paper and made a huge contribution in comparison to everyone else, you probably won't best listed ahead of doctors and post-docs. At least that is my experience. Also, how does it look for them to have a 'student' be listed 'ahead' of them? Its seems that's how it goes for the big journals, like JCI, Immunology, Nature, etc.

You should be more worried about getting research experience, and one that is worthwhile that you can learn from and putting out a good paper as a group (and hopefully a good journal), rather than where you are in the pecking order if you're applying MD or DO. Worry about authorship listing if you're getting a PhD or supplementing your residency application.

 

[Narmerguy]

but yea, in terms of first author, you are right. when BerlinDude said first author did all the work, i was thinking he meant research work. it's a pretty crappy tradeoff. i wish i could write papers easily.

Yeah it actually is a skill 🙁 I don't think I really have it.

 

[cardinalsrock]

.

 

[cardinalsrock]

I don't know how clinical journals work, but for basic science journal first and last authors are important and like comparing apples and oranges: it is stupid to rank which is more important because they're not equivalent unlike 1st vs 2nd author on 3+ author paper who can be compared since 1>>>2. 1st author did most of work and will often have to write the paper up. Every time the paper is quoted, you will only see that author's last name. Last author is the P.I. and the money flows through the PI and PI's lab. Correspondence goes to the last author. Multi-lab collaboration paper? Last PI is where the bulk of the work came from.

 

[CoolWhipp]

Those mentioned first and last are usually the most important.