How good is second author anyway?

[Slide]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So after this summer's research my group's submission luckily gets accepted into a pretty good ophthalmology journal. My mentor told me I would be second author on the paper, which is dandy and all considering I just collected and crunched the data. However, it turns out I'm going to be the one writing the entire paper, from the first word to the last period of the paper. Given this, how would residency directors and attendings look upon this? If I tell them that I wrote the paper, would the order in which my name came in even matter?

 

[StIGMA]

IMO it is shady that you are writing the paper but not first author. You should probably push him for co-first author.

As far as research goes, it is first author or bust if you are looking for a tenure-track position, but the other papers you may publish look nice.

I would assume for residency/etc first author or not is not as big of a deal, because you are not going into research, but I can't comment there.

 

[gro2001]

IMO it is shady that you are writing the paper but not first author. You should probably push him for co-first author.

As far as research goes, it is first author or bust if you are looking for a tenure-track position, but the other papers you may publish look nice.

I would assume for residency/etc first author or not is not as big of a deal, because you are not going into research, but I can't comment there.

When publishing, how can you specify that you have two co-authors as opposed to a first and second author?

 

[Law2Doc]

I would assume for residency/etc first author or not is not as big of a deal, because you are not going into research, but I can't comment there.

Competitive residencies often still expect their residents to want to do further research, so yeah first author is still helpful. But any publications look good because not everyone is going to have a first author pub.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

about a third as good as first author by my reckoning. So the paper has been accepted but you haven't written it yet? That's strange.

 

[Slide]

about a third as good as first author by my reckoning. So the paper has been accepted but you haven't written it yet? That's strange.

Before we can actually write the paper we had to submit the abstract and preliminary findings to the journal to see if they'll actually interested in publishing. Once accepted, then the paper writing process actually begins.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Before we can actually write the paper we had to submit the abstract and preliminary findings to the journal to see if they'll actually interested in publishing. Once accepted, then the paper writing process actually begins.

That doesn't sound like it's been accepted for publication yet. Even invited submissions are subject to the same review process, and it may take months or years to get the paper done, revised (x however many revisions they ask for), and finally accepted (hopefully).

 

[StIGMA]

When publishing, how can you specify that you have two co-authors as opposed to a first and second author?

The names will still be listed as normal, except the journal will do whatever method it chooses to designate that both authors should be considered first author. ie: put an asterisk next to each name, with a designation below that both people are first authors.

 

[menotyou7]

1st author means you wrote the paper and that it's on your project.

Last author means you wrote the grant that supported the research.

All other authorship positions mean that you made a significant intellectual contribution - usually meaning that you produced and analyzed the data supporting a figure. These positions are generally listed alphabetically and are all equal. I'm a PhD student and I'd say all middle author positions are equally unimpressive. We don't even get to count them toward our graduation requirements.

If you are writing the paper, then you should either be first author or co-first author.

 

[Law2Doc]

All other authorship positions mean that you made a significant intellectual contribution - usually meaning that you produced and analyzed the data supporting a figure. These positions are generally listed alphabetically and are all equal.

Um no, this isn't the standard at all. Do a pubmed search and I promise you you won't find all middle authors listed alphabetically. The folks who get second and sometimes third spot tend to have given greater contribution. They are not regarded as equal, although they are significantly less important than the first author. It's quite rare for the middle authors to be listed alphabetically. If that's what you've been told either the places you've worked with aren't doing what everyplace else does, or they told you that to screw you out of a better name position listing.

 

[Bluemirage]

I agree with Law2doc...I have never heard of this protocol in medical journals.

1st author means you wrote the paper and that it's on your project.

Last author means you wrote the grant that supported the research.

All other authorship positions mean that you made a significant intellectual contribution - usually meaning that you produced and analyzed the data supporting a figure. These positions are generally listed alphabetically and are all equal. I'm a PhD student and I'd say all middle author positions are equally unimpressive. We don't even get to count them toward our graduation requirements.

If you are writing the paper, then you should either be first author or co-first author.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

All other authorship positions mean that you made a significant intellectual contribution - usually meaning that you produced and analyzed the data supporting a figure. These positions are generally listed alphabetically and are all equal. I'm a PhD student and I'd say all middle author positions are equally unimpressive. We don't even get to count them toward our graduation requirements.

If you are writing the paper, then you should either be first author or co-first author.

That's crazy talk. I don't know what kind of PhD student you are but that's just silly.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Before we can actually write the paper we had to submit the abstract and preliminary findings to the journal to see if they'll actually interested in publishing. Once accepted, then the paper writing process actually begins.

Ah I see, may I ask what journal? AJO? IOVS?

 

[Slide]

Ah I see, may I ask what journal? AJO? IOVS?

Ophthalmology (the AAO one). I don't know how this journal ranks up compared to other ophtho journals, but my mentor told me it was respectable. I honestly thought our paper would have been given the go at IOVS or Retina.

 

[menotyou7]

That's crazy talk. I don't know what kind of PhD student you are but that's just silly.

Ha! the kind that's graduating with a PhD in December.

My focus is microbiology and immunology and I'm working at a medical school. I've only published in ASM journals, and I've only been first author, so maybe if you publish elsewhere they have different rules. Point is, if the person is writing, they should be first author. Middle author positions don't count for much of anything on your CV. There are lots of students who think that they should make a big huff about whether they are second or third or so on. But what really matters is if you are first. That's why journals have proceedures in place to denote multiple "first" authors. I'll graduate with three first author positions and two middle author positions (only middle). But you know what, the only papers that will count for anything are the three first authorships.

Anyway, sorry to stumble onto your board. Clearly if you want to know how research/academia works the last person you want to talk to is a PhD. I don't know what I was thinking.

 

[Law2Doc]

Ha! the kind that's graduating with a PhD in December.

My focus is microbiology and immunology and I'm working at a medical school. I've only published in ASM journals, and I've only been first author, so maybe if you publish elsewhere they have different rules. Point is, if the person is writing, they should be first author. Middle author positions don't count for much of anything on your CV. There are lots of students who think that they should make a big huff about whether they are second or third or so on. But what really matters is if you are first. That's why journals have proceedures in place to denote multiple "first" authors. I'll graduate with three first author positions and two middle author positions (only middle). But you know what, the only papers that will count for anything are the three first authorships.

Anyway, sorry to stumble onto your board. Clearly if you want to know how research/academia works the last person you want to talk to is a PhD. I don't know what I was thinking.

For academia and your future research grants perhaps only first author counts. (Although I still have to think you "made up" that stuff about the alphabetical listing of middle authors because honestly nothing I've seen in pubmed suggests anyone does it that way). For residency applications, however, a second or third author still counts, just not as much. And ERAS does not, as far as I can tell, have a procedure to denote multiple first authors so unless you want to risk listing them in your own order (different from pubmed) you are probably SOL. So yeah, you kind of stumbled onto a board that does things differently, and gave a response that is simply not accurate for purposes of most of the readers here. So I guess we agree in your last paragraph, as a PhD you simply don't have useful expertise as to how research is used in the med school setting.

And FWIW, much of your MDApplicants profile is horribly misspelled. If you are going to apply to med school, be sure to have someone proofread all your stuff. You won't get a bye because you are a PhD.

 

[Mr hawkings]

For academia and your future research grants perhaps only first author counts. (Although I still have to think you "made up" that stuff about the alphabetical listing of middle authors because honestly nothing I've seen in pubmed suggests anyone does it that way). For residency applications, however, a second or third author still counts, just not as much. And ERAS does not, as far as I can tell, have a procedure to denote multiple first authors so unless you want to risk listing them in your own order (different from pubmed) you are probably SOL. So yeah, you kind of stumbled onto a board that does things differently, and gave a response that is simply not accurate for purposes of most of the readers here. So I guess we agree in your last paragraph, as a PhD you simply don't have useful expertise as to how research is used in the med school setting.

And FWIW, much of your MDApplicants profile is horribly misspelled. If you are going to apply to med school, be sure to have someone proofread all your stuff. You won't get a bye because you are a PhD.

lol. Here we go.

 

[Slide]

For residency applications, however, a second or third author still counts, just not as much. And ERAS does not, as far as I can tell, have a procedure to denote multiple first authors so unless you want to risk listing them in your own order (different from pubmed) you are probably SOL.

Damn 🙁

So there's pretty much zero chance I can be a co-first author on a clinical research paper?

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Ha! the kind that's graduating with a PhD in December.

My focus is microbiology and immunology and I'm working at a medical school. I've only published in ASM journals, and I've only been first author, so maybe if you publish elsewhere they have different rules. Point is, if the person is writing, they should be first author. Middle author positions don't count for much of anything on your CV. There are lots of students who think that they should make a big huff about whether they are second or third or so on. But what really matters is if you are first. That's why journals have proceedures in place to denote multiple "first" authors. I'll graduate with three first author positions and two middle author positions (only middle). But you know what, the only papers that will count for anything are the three first authorships.

Anyway, sorry to stumble onto your board. Clearly if you want to know how research/academia works the last person you want to talk to is a PhD. I don't know what I was thinking.

Here is the latest issue of an ABM journal:
http://jcm.asm.org/content/vol46/issue2/

Can you point out the articles where middle authorships are alphabetically arranged? I have plenty of experience myself with this and middle authorships should be doled out in the order of contribution to the paper.

I do agree with you that the value drops precipitously as you move down the authorship rank. My personal system for value of a publication first author gets 100%, second author 33%, third author 11%, and so on each being 1/3. Last author is an exception of course. Like L2D said, publications aren't required for medical students so having any authorship at all is probably above average.

 

[ellia08]

The importance of a first/co-first/co-author can also depend on your research field. (which can suck because often the clinical application process hasnt yet caught up to more collaborative nature of some of the newer areas in science. On the other hand, new science = exciting and sexy)

For example, in common disease genomics, co-first authors and HUGE author lists are fairly standard. (because hey, it takes a LOT of scientists to process, genotype and analyze 70,000 clinical samples... it just does... and more than 3 first authors is just ridiculous, even if the author list is >150 people). I specify on my CV what figures I designed and what sections I wrote when I was co-author (clearly this isn't necessary when I'm first). 🙂


I'm sure that you, I, and residency directors know that while authorship order should indicate the amount of work done, it often doesnt. In reality, authorship order can mean anything -- from seniority in the lab to, on the opposite pole, the fulfillment of what a student needs from a mentor at a given time ("but Dr X, I'm applying for residency now and I need a paper!").


Overall, does it matter if your first or if your co- ? ... maybe a little. But take a step back and realize that this is just one paper of many. You will speak about it eloquently on the interview trail and your application will be stronger for having a paper. The authorship on one paper wont be the determining factor in your getting an interview... there are just too many other contributing factors. Once you are in the interview, if they want to know what your contribution was than you can tell them. It's hard to get papers out during med school and you will look great for having one!

 

[bigdan]

OP-
I see you asked about how residency programs would look at your authorship status; given there are lots of medical students (like me) applying to residency WITHOUT any publications, I'd say second author looks pretty damn good.

By word of mouth, those that graduated ahead of me last year at my school with pubs were often asked about their contributions to the publication, and the specifics within the pub. If you've done the lion's share of the work, even without first authorship, it will be (or should be) clear to your interviewer that you know what's going on, and that you're not just a tag-along name.

Congrats on the abstract acceptance, and g'luck with the paper.

dc

 

[EBI831]

Damn 🙁

So there's pretty much zero chance I can be a co-first author on a clinical research paper?

Why not? I'm guessing I can be. Maybe my experience is just different. I'm working in a lab with a PI with only 2 other people in lab. the 2 people just do bench stuff. my PI gave me a patient base and some ideas and i ran with it and worked pretty much independently the last few months and even designed a lot of the project myself. isn't this what clinical research generally is? [mine is a review of 700 patient charts, etc and the way i'm going about it ie case control vs. case series vs. cohort study etc is just up to me]? i dont see how i can't be a co-first author on this as it's just two of us and i did it all.