How to list papers on CV when you are one of many authors?

[Treebeard]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I took part in a large clinical research project and am listed as an author on the manuscript. I worked hard on this for a long time and it is published in a very high impact journal, so it definitely belongs on my CV. I am, however, listed somewhere in the bottom middle on a list of around 28 authors (it was a clinical trial run at many centers across the country).

How do I list this on my CV? If i type out all of the authors names it will take a ton of lines which will look odd, but I can't figure out a way to truncate the list while keeping mine in it that doesn't seem dishonest (ie make it seem like I was 2nd author or something when I definitely wasn't).

Please help. Thanks!

 

[MSTP18]

I took part in a large clinical research project and am listed as an author on the manuscript. I worked hard on this for a long time and it is published in a very high impact journal, so it definitely belongs on my CV. I am, however, listed somewhere in the bottom middle on a list of around 28 authors (it was a clinical trial run at many centers across the country).

How do I list this on my CV? If i type out all of the authors names it will take a ton of lines which will look odd, but I can't figure out a way to truncate the list while keeping mine in it that doesn't seem dishonest (ie make it seem like I was 2nd author or something when I definitely wasn't).

Please help. Thanks!

Just put the first author et al and list it like every other pub. If you were like 3rd or 4th out of 28 I would suggest maybe getting to yourself before going et al but if you're that far down, it doesn't really matter exactly where you are. If you're listing the publication it's obvious you are an author on it. I guess you could do like first author...your name...last author or something like that but I feel like that might get confusing.

 

[Treebeard]

Just put the first author et al and list it like every other pub. If you were like 3rd or 4th out of 28 I would suggest maybe getting to yourself before going et al but if you're that far down, it doesn't really matter exactly where you are. If you're listing the publication it's obvious you are an author on it. I guess you could do like first author...your name...last author or something like that but I feel like that might get confusing.

Hm OK. I guess it only really matters if you are first or 'not-first', so perhaps I should just list all of my pubs as "First Author, et al" and sometimes that will be my name and sometimes it wont?

 

[kraskadva]

2 ways I've seen this on full length academic CVs... (as opposed to truncated resumes)
All pubs are done the same way, with either:
First Author, et al.
OR
all authors listed out with the individual bolding their name wherever it appears in the lineup

The second option is far more common in my experience. And a full academic CV has no page limit (I've seen as much as 80+ pages from mid career folks) so I wouldn't worry about going long.
Just don't mix and match styles.

 

[deleted480308]

1. Change legal name to “et al”
2. Profit?

 

[MSTP18]

Hm OK. I guess it only really matters if you are first or 'not-first', so perhaps I should just list all of my pubs as "First Author, et al" and sometimes that will be my name and sometimes it wont?

No, 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th out of 5 are important, 18th vs 19th out of 28 is not. That being said, I realize now what I put was wrong and @kraskadva has it right.

 

[Lawpy]

1. Change legal name to “et al”
2. Profit?

 

[Dr G Oogle]

There is no convention for that many authors and listing your own name if you’re somewhere in the middle. Just pick a citation method and stick with it on your CV, people will understand you’re a Coauthor if you listed it. Also I disagree with a sentiment that being 18th or 19th out of 28 is not as good as 4th or 5th out of 6. In fact I think it’s the other way around I will often put a Med stud or resident who did a bit of work and needs a boost on their cv as 4th or 5th author but to get to be on a paper such as the OP mentioned requires quite a bit of contribution. Also papers with that many authors may have a more arbitrary listing (say by alphabet or institution) that has nothing to do with level of participation, other than first and last obviously.

 

[MSTP18]

There is no convention for that many authors and listing your own name if you’re somewhere in the middle. Just pick a citation method and stick with it on your CV, people will understand you’re a Coauthor if you listed it. Also I disagree with a sentiment that being 18th or 19th out of 28 is not as good as 4th or 5th out of 6. In fact I think it’s the other way around I will often put a Med stud or resident who did a bit of work and needs a boost on their cv as 4th or 5th author but to get to be on a paper such as the OP mentioned requires quite a bit of contribution. Also papers with that many authors may have a more arbitrary listing (say by alphabet or institution) that has nothing to do with level of participation, other than first and last obviously.

You misunderstood my point. My point was that 4th vs 5th out of 6 is a more meaningful distinction than 18th vs 19th out of 28. As in people will care more that you were 4th instead of 5th when there are 6 authors than they will care that you are 18th instead of 19th when there are 28. They will also care more if you are 4th or 5th out of 28 instead of 18 or 19. I made no statements about whether 4th vs 5th out of 6 is better or worse than 18 or 19 out of 28. They may have an arbitrary order, but usually they don't. And the fact that they do sometimes only proves my point about how important authorship position is on these big papers outside of the first and last few. Many of the people on those big papers may have done 1 experiment or they did some data analysis - not necessarily any more work than you are describing for those 6 author papers. There are PIs who are strict with their authorship and those who aren't.

 

[Dr G Oogle]

You misunderstood my point. My point was that 4th vs 5th out of 6 is a more meaningful distinction than 18th vs 19th out of 28. As in people will care more that you were 4th instead of 5th when there are 6 authors than they will care that you are 18th instead of 19th when there are 28. They will also care more if you are 4th or 5th out of 28 instead of 18 or 19. I made no statements about whether 4th vs 5th out of 6 is better or worse than 18 or 19 out of 28. They may have an arbitrary order, but usually they don't. And the fact that they do sometimes only proves my point about how important authorship position is on these big papers outside of the first and last few. Many of the people on those big papers may have done 1 experiment or they did some data analysis - not necessarily any more work than you are describing for those 6 author papers. There are PIs who are strict with their authorship and those who aren't.

Ah I see...my bad

 

[Treebeard]

Thanks to everyone who responded! I am updating my CV right now for something that calls for a 3 page limit, so I'll just do first author, et al for now. I'll worry about this again when it comes time for residency apps.