I collected all of the data for a database and a fellow is guiding me through analyzing the data and write the paper. Would I still be 1st author?

[CuriousMDStudent]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Title sums it up. I collected data on a few hundred patients for a database. After I collected it, my PI put me in contact with a fellow who's been guiding me through analyzing the data and writing the paper. However, since he's advising and guiding me, I wonder if they'll get 1st author vs me even though I dedicated weeks to collect data. I'm still helping analyze the data and writing the paper. I know it's not a big deal but it's something I'm just a little bit curious about. If anyone has thoughts on what to expect that would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[Dral]

It's hard to say honestly. Many papers are written with the help of statisticians who put in hours of work, but are put in the middle somewhere. An important point is that they didn't likely come up with the original overall ideas/hypotheses for the work.

Did you come up with the idea for the project?

If I was the PI and you came up with the idea and did that work, I would put you as first author. If I as PI came up with the idea, but you took the initiative to put in the work of gathering data and actually did the background work and actual writing of the manuscript, I'd almost certainly give you first author. If the fellow came up with the idea or if they put in other work for the project at some point, things could change.

 

[Lawpy]

Just collecting the data doesn't guarantee 1st author. You need to lead the project all the way from investigation to writing phase to qualify for 1st author.

 

[CuriousMDStudent]

It's hard to say honestly. Many papers are written with the help of statisticians who put in hours of work, but are put in the middle somewhere. An important point is that they didn't likely come up with the original overall ideas/hypotheses for the work.

Did you come up with the idea for the project?

If I was the PI and you came up with the idea and did that work, I would put you as first author. If I as PI came up with the idea, but you took the initiative to put in the work of gathering data and actually did the background work and actual writing of the manuscript, I'd almost certainly give you first author. If the fellow came up with the idea or if they put in other work for the project at some point, things could change.

It's the second. I gathered all of the data. The PI created the idea. Now we're both working on analyzing the data and writing it up.

 

[Dral]

In that case I would tend to make you first author. You could gently bring it up with your PI. You could present it as "I would love to be first author on this paper. Above what I'm doing, is there anything else I can do to fulfill that role?".

The PI could easily say it's too early to tell, but if it's a concern of yours, I feel it's better to get that worked out up front.

 

[futureapppsy2]

In that case I would tend to make you first author. You could gently bring it up with your PI. You could present it as "I would love to be first author on this paper. Above what I'm doing, is there anything else I can do to fulfill that role?".

The PI could easily say it's too early to tell, but if it's a concern of yours, I feel it's better to get that worked out up front.

This. State your wants early, not as demands, but as a way to see what you need to do to get there.

 

[WheezyBaby]

Ideally, expectations and author assignments should be defined much earlier than this. I think it could fairly go either way in this case depending on the distribution of effort toward writing the manuscript

 

[FluffyCat1212]

Echoing everyone else, before starting medical school, my former PI advised me to "be aggressive about seeking 1st authorship and to make [it] an explicit request." Bring it up with the fellow and get this sorted out. Make sure to advocate for yourself.

 

[Goro]

Title sums it up. I collected data on a few hundred patients for a database. After I collected it, my PI put me in contact with a fellow who's been guiding me through analyzing the data and writing the paper. However, since he's advising and guiding me, I wonder if they'll get 1st author vs me even though I dedicated weeks to collect data. I'm still helping analyze the data and writing the paper. I know it's not a big deal but it's something I'm just a little bit curious about. If anyone has thoughts on what to expect that would be appreciated, thanks.

Ask your PI, not us

 

[aldol16]

Widely varying scenarios could happen. This is why it's important to set expectations early on - and that's the role of the PI. A good PI will say hey, person A will take the lead on this project and you help them do it. If that's the case, then person A is getting first author. It's likely that the fellow will get first author and write it up. You're doing the data analysis which should net you a second author or so.

 

[hiiiiiiiiiii]

I have lots of research experience in situations like these...

If you came up with the idea for the project and did all the leg work, including writing the paper, you most certainly deserve first author, no matter what your PI says. Conventionally, first author typically goes to the person who wrote the paper. What I do when I’m writing a manuscript, is put my name first on the cover page and if someone wants to battle with me over first author they can bring it up. There was only one time that someone challenged the authorship order I listed and tbh they were in the right so I submitted to them and took second author. Anyway, it sounds like it’s been your project since the start and the fellow is just ancillary, so fight for what you deserve—Mr. first author. If the fellow tries to claim it, they are taking advantage of you because you are below them on the medical hierarchy

/thread

 

[CuriousMDStudent]

So I need some help. I spoke privately with the fellow and update: The fellow has claimed first author. We spoke on the phone. I don't know how to address this. I collected all of the data for hundreds of patients. He told me I can be second author but we're splitting the work on writing the manuscript where I'll be writing the methods and results and he'll be writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It kinda annoys me because I feel I invested a lot more time into this but I don't know what to do or say.

 

[Lawpy]

So I need some help. I spoke privately with the fellow and update: The fellow has claimed first author. We spoke on the phone. I don't know how to address this. I collected all of the data for hundreds of patients. He told me I can be second author but we're splitting the work on writing the manuscript where I'll be writing the methods and results and he'll be writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It kinda annoys me because I feel I invested a lot more time into this but I don't know what to do or say.

Ask your PI for a co first author.

 

[CuriousMDStudent]

Ask your PI for a co first author.

Do you have any advice on how to phrase this? I was thinking of saying that I worked hard to collect all of the data and while the fellow has more knowledge to write the intro, discussion, and conclusion; I will still be contributing to the manuscript, would it be possible to be co first authors for the paper?

 

[Lawpy]

Do you have any advice on how to phrase this? I was thinking of saying that I worked hard to collect all of the data and while the fellow has more knowledge to write the intro, discussion, and conclusion; would it be possible to be co first authors for the paper?

That looks ok to me. You and the fellow are splitting the work, so that itself merits co first authors.

Although i'd still try to make the case to your PI for first author if you truly led the project. Because tbh, writing the introduction and discussion are the easy part imo, since it's just providing background knowledge and how your work contributes to existing literature. The challenge is in the methods and results, so you really are carrying much of the bulk of the paper that warrants being 1st author.

 

[WheezyBaby]

Depending on the project, the methods and results can almost write themself. I generally think there's considerably more effort in a well written intro / discussion / conclusion, and it requires the bigger picture knowledge of the literature and how the project fits into it. OP, are you familiar with the literature to a degree where you could easily write those sections? The time investment of data collection doesn't necessarily merit first authorship, and it sounds like the fellow has guided you through the process of completing that as well. You're welcome to ask for co-authorship, but I'd be careful how you come across because from an academic / publishing standard it doesn't sound like you're being hustled out of first author just due to fellow seniority

 

[Lawpy]

Depending on the project, the methods and results can almost write themself. I generally think there's considerably more effort in a well written intro / discussion / conclusion, and it requires the bigger picture knowledge of the literature and how the project fits into it. OP, are you familiar with the literature to a degree where you could easily write those sections? The time investment of data collection doesn't necessarily merit first authorship, and it sounds like the fellow has guided you through the process of completing that as well. You're welcome to ask for co-authorship, but I'd be careful how you come across because from an academic / publishing standard it doesn't sound like you're being hustled out of first author just due to fellow seniority

This is interesting because the introduction/discussion are usually a breeze, since, at least for me, it's difficult to work on a project if i don't know the background.

 

[aldol16]

You have to pick your battles. Is this really worth the fight? A lot of medicine is about navigating politics. The PI wanted the fellow on the project. The fellow probably needs some papers for their next academic post. Is the PI closer with the fellow than with you? Do you want to fight this battle?

 

[CuriousMDStudent]

Update: I emailed the attending as politely as possible and asked if a reconsideration for co-first authors is possible as I did all the data collection and will still be dedicating my fair share to the manuscript. I did not put down the fellow either or try to knock down what they're doing. The attending said he would discuss with the fellow and will let me know.

I don't know the outcome. I at least sleep at night knowing that I brought it up. I appreciate the insight here as I wouldn't have had the courage to bring it up if I didn't speak to anyone here.

I recognize the fellow is guiding me here as I don't have a lot of experience writing papers and submitting to conferences and journals. The fellow is also more knowledgeable on the topic because he's a fellow and this is a clinical research project so he's familiar with the surgeries and maneuvers involved so he is more suited to write the intro and such.

Like I'd be fine with being a co-first author. I put in more effort and he brought in more insight. He's a fellow so he can't put equal effort as he's in clinic. I feel co- first authors would be fair because I dedicated weeks to data collection and stayed up many nights to get this done before summer ended. I just feel upset if all I come out with is a second author pub. I hear first author pubs mean a lot to residencies and I put so much effort into this project. At this point, it is what it is and whatever happens, happens. I tried my best and all that matters.

 

[operaman]

I know I’m jumping in late here but just wanted to say:

Authorship should be discussed before even beginning a project. It’s as easy as saying to your PI “ok, sounds like an interesting project. Let’s talk about authorship.” That’s all you have to say.

Everyone knows authorship is academic currency and vitally important. It’s also reasonable to say “that’s a wonderful project but I’d really like to invest my time in a project where I can really take ownership and that could lead to a first author publication” if your best case is just a middle author pub. This should never be something awkward to talk about because it’s so obviously important for everyone involved. Nothing wrong with middle author pubs, especially if you’re a novice, but the work and time investment should ideally be reflect in authorship.

I would also remind students that you have some incredible leverage in these negotiations. You have your time and willingness to do some grunt work as well as the fact you’re some of the smartest people in the world who can grasp the ideas behind a project. Every faculty member is under the gun from their chair and institution to publish and get funding. There are metrics on every faculty promotion sheet and often a lot of bonus compensation tied to their overall productivity. What do you think the limiting factor is in getting projects off the ground? Time and people! Yes, money too, but often a big part of grant funding goes toward people. And you’re free! So please don’t anyone ever be afraid to discuss authorship early and often.

 

[SCallergydoc]

So PI came up with an idea. Collecting all the data in a few weeks probably means some type of chart review based on their idea. They are asking you to write some technical components of the paper and they are writing the bulk of the paper including the background, results and discussion. They can put their name anywhere they want. Having said that, most PI's on two author papers put their name last

 

[futureapppsy2]

So I need some help. I spoke privately with the fellow and update: The fellow has claimed first author. We spoke on the phone. I don't know how to address this. I collected all of the data for hundreds of patients. He told me I can be second author but we're splitting the work on writing the manuscript where I'll be writing the methods and results and he'll be writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It kinda annoys me because I feel I invested a lot more time into this but I don't know what to do or say.

Honestly, from the experience of someone with nearly 100 journal articles, being seen as an agreeable and good co-author is much better than having hostile argument about first v. second author. If you can have a polite discussion that you're willing to lose (ideally, mediated by your PI), then do it, but it's not worth causing a blow-up over.

 

[Lawpy]

Honestly, from the experience of someone with nearly 100 journal articles, being seen as an agreeable and good co-author is much better than having hostile argument about first v. second offer. If you can have a polite discussion that you're willing to lose (ideally, mediated by your PI), then do it, but it's not worth causing a blow-up over.

Yep i definitely agree with this. My approach is focused mainly on churning out as many papers as possible so if someone wants to take the lead, more power to them especially if they're more senior than me like residents and attendings.

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

It's the second. I gathered all of the data. The PI created the idea. Now we're both working on analyzing the data and writing it up.

You should really just clarify that with your PI right now so there will be no disappointment in the future.

 

[ortnakas]

So I need some help. I spoke privately with the fellow and update: The fellow has claimed first author. We spoke on the phone. I don't know how to address this. I collected all of the data for hundreds of patients. He told me I can be second author but we're splitting the work on writing the manuscript where I'll be writing the methods and results and he'll be writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It kinda annoys me because I feel I invested a lot more time into this but I don't know what to do or say.

In my experience the person doing the intro/discussion is typically the first author. That said, everybody else is right: just ask your PI to clarify.

 

[aldol16]

So PI came up with an idea. Collecting all the data in a few weeks probably means some type of chart review based on their idea. They are asking you to write some technical components of the paper and they are writing the bulk of the paper including the background, results and discussion. They can put their name anywhere they want. Having said that, most PI's on two author papers put their name last

You realize that they're talking about the fellow, not the PI right?

 

[aldol16]

Honestly, from the experience of someone with nearly 100 journal articles, being seen as an agreeable and good co-author is much better than having hostile argument about first v. second author. If you can have a polite discussion that you're willing to lose (ideally, mediated by your PI), then do it, but it's not worth causing a blow-up over.

Exactly. Another way of looking at it is remember that you will be a fellow one day. Would you be okay with this if the tables were turned? You put in the work now and you'll get the benefits later on - that's pretty much all of medicine.

 

[mvenus929]

So I need some help. I spoke privately with the fellow and update: The fellow has claimed first author. We spoke on the phone. I don't know how to address this. I collected all of the data for hundreds of patients. He told me I can be second author but we're splitting the work on writing the manuscript where I'll be writing the methods and results and he'll be writing the introduction, discussion, and conclusion. It kinda annoys me because I feel I invested a lot more time into this but I don't know what to do or say.

Because tbh, writing the introduction and discussion are the easy part imo, since it's just providing background knowledge and how your work contributes to existing literature. The challenge is in the methods and results, so you really are carrying much of the bulk of the paper that warrants being 1st author.

In my experience writing papers, the methods and results are the easiest things to write (sometimes choosing what to include in the results is challenging, but the actual writing of it is not). The introduction is usually written as part of the justification for doing the project, but the discussion can be quite challenging, especially if it's been a while since you did your literature search. And you have to have a good handle on the results in order to write the discussion. So I'd also say the person that does the synthesis of the information, all things considered, probably does more work with writing the manuscript.

That said, OP, you did a lot of work. I don't think asking for co-first author is unreasonable, but I'll also say that second author is not a bad position for you. You're still early in training and will have more opportunities to get involved in projects where you can be first author, and this may help you with that to some degree. And, more importantly, you will be able to talk extensively about this project on residency interviews. That carries more weight than someone else who has a middle (or even first) authorship who can't actually explain their project.

And in general, authorship is something that should be discussed early. I have a second author paper that I probably did just as much work as the first author, but the first author came up with the idea originally and wrote initial drafts of the manuscript... this despite me having a better understanding of the background because it is in my area of expertise. I'm also maybe being put as last author on another paper using data I collected and analyzed for that project because our senior author is writing the manuscript and claiming first authorship. On another project during my fellowship, me and another fellow did the same amount of data collection, but I did data analysis (along with our statistician) and wrote the bulk of the manuscript, so I claimed first author (I was originally going to let the other fellow have it, but they were being quite slow with the writing and then something came up that they had to step back from the project for a bit). That project stemmed a project for another fellow, who is going to be first author on her manuscript and I'll be put somewhere in the middle. She also has a student working on her project doing data collection, but that student does not understand the intricacies of the project.

Bottom line: you're getting a publication. If you don't get co-first author, it's not the end of the world, you still have something to put on your residency application and will be able to talk about the project *in detail* during interviews.

 

[Lawpy]

In my experience writing papers, the methods and results are the easiest things to write (sometimes choosing what to include in the results is challenging, but the actual writing of it is not). The introduction is usually written as part of the justification for doing the project, but the discussion can be quite challenging, especially if it's been a while since you did your literature search. And you have to have a good handle on the results in order to write the discussion. So I'd also say the person that does the synthesis of the information, all things considered, probably does more work with writing the manuscript.

That said, OP, you did a lot of work. I don't think asking for co-first author is unreasonable, but I'll also say that second author is not a bad position for you. You're still early in training and will have more opportunities to get involved in projects where you can be first author, and this may help you with that to some degree. And, more importantly, you will be able to talk extensively about this project on residency interviews. That carries more weight than someone else who has a middle (or even first) authorship who can't actually explain their project.

And in general, authorship is something that should be discussed early. I have a second author paper that I probably did just as much work as the first author, but the first author came up with the idea originally and wrote initial drafts of the manuscript... this despite me having a better understanding of the background because it is in my area of expertise. I'm also maybe being put as last author on another paper using data I collected and analyzed for that project because our senior author is writing the manuscript and claiming first authorship. On another project during my fellowship, me and another fellow did the same amount of data collection, but I did data analysis (along with our statistician) and wrote the bulk of the manuscript, so I claimed first author (I was originally going to let the other fellow have it, but they were being quite slow with the writing and then something came up that they had to step back from the project for a bit). That project stemmed a project for another fellow, who is going to be first author on her manuscript and I'll be put somewhere in the middle. She also has a student working on her project doing data collection, but that student does not understand the intricacies of the project.

Bottom line: you're getting a publication. If you don't get co-first author, it's not the end of the world, you still have something to put on your residency application and will be able to talk about the project *in detail* during interviews.

This is interesting, although i'm realizing i'm approaching it differently since when i work on something, i do a lot of literature search on the topic to get a better grasp of the context (the project makes no sense to me otherwise). So the discussion basically writes itself very naturally. The hard part lies in whether the results make sense.

 

[mrbreakfast]

I think authorship should go like this:

First: did lit review, wrote intro and discussion
Second: wrote methods/results
Third: statistician, if not one of the above
Fourth-whatever: data collectors (M1s usually)
Third-to-last: database manager (maybe hasn't read manuscript)
Second-to-last: peripheral attendings (definitely haven't read manuscript)
Last: PI

I published many papers in medical school and wrote the results, did database management, and did statistics for all of them; I also did data collection for most of them. I was still never first author unless I wrote the discussion myself.

OP: think of this as proverbially getting your feet wet. There's plenty more to publish. I wouldn't fight for authorship.

 

[Lawpy]

Well i'm surprised to see the heavy weight SDN places on the intro/discussion since i really don't think much of it and it doesn't take long to write a good one. But it's definitely something i'm keeping in mind so thanks for the tips.

 

[Phloston]

Title sums it up. I collected data on a few hundred patients for a database. After I collected it, my PI put me in contact with a fellow who's been guiding me through analyzing the data and writing the paper. However, since he's advising and guiding me, I wonder if they'll get 1st author vs me even though I dedicated weeks to collect data. I'm still helping analyze the data and writing the paper. I know it's not a big deal but it's something I'm just a little bit curious about. If anyone has thoughts on what to expect that would be appreciated, thanks.

I wouldn't mention it or even make it an "issue." When the time comes for paper publication, if they put you as 2nd and you believe you should be 1st, be assertive about what you want - i.e., to make you first or co-author.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Update: I emailed the attending as politely as possible and asked if a reconsideration for co-first authors is possible as I did all the data collection and will still be dedicating my fair share to the manuscript. I did not put down the fellow either or try to knock down what they're doing. The attending said he would discuss with the fellow and will let me know.

I don't know the outcome. I at least sleep at night knowing that I brought it up. I appreciate the insight here as I wouldn't have had the courage to bring it up if I didn't speak to anyone here.

I recognize the fellow is guiding me here as I don't have a lot of experience writing papers and submitting to conferences and journals. The fellow is also more knowledgeable on the topic because he's a fellow and this is a clinical research project so he's familiar with the surgeries and maneuvers involved so he is more suited to write the intro and such.

Like I'd be fine with being a co-first author. I put in more effort and he brought in more insight. He's a fellow so he can't put equal effort as he's in clinic. I feel co- first authors would be fair because I dedicated weeks to data collection and stayed up many nights to get this done before summer ended. I just feel upset if all I come out with is a second author pub. I hear first author pubs mean a lot to residencies and I put so much effort into this project. At this point, it is what it is and whatever happens, happens. I tried my best and all that matters.

I wish you good luck, but I'm just emphasizing your focus is on the effort that went into the project and not necessarily the productivity that went into it. Just because you worked really hard doesn't mean that you are entitled to a high authorship on a paper--for example, techs put in a TON of work on basic science projects, but they'll never get a high author position because all of the intellectual input that guided the project came from the PI and the post-doc

At the end of the day, it is that expertise that brings the most to the project. If you hadn't come along, the fellow still could have done the project, it just would've taken way longer; in contrast, you could not have done the project without the fellow guiding you. And while a generous fellow absolutely could be willing to give you co-first author, I don't think that they are being unfair by claiming first authorship either.

I will again echo what everyone else has said--in the future, this is why you hash out authorship within the first couple of meetings. These are the exact kinds of situations where feelings can get hurt and expectations can not get met. A 2 minute conversation could have prevented this. If it makes you feel better, ANY publication is good for residency. 2nd author would still be meaningful, and if it's a good paper (ie more than a random case report) then even better.

also, if it makes you feel better—what you are describing is exactly what I did for my first pub. I spent a whole research elective putting a database together, and then the fellow used it and got first author while I got second. We got along so well that when I asked for a subsequent project to take the lead and get first, he was very happy to help me. So bottom line, the most important thing that you get from this is a strong relationship with the research group so that they keep you involved. If you get co first, great, but after this past email to the PI I think you need to let this go and focus on being a team player.

 

[CuriousMDStudent]

Final update: My PI ended up making me 2nd author. It is what it is.

I'm not too upset honestly because based on this thread it was a 50:50. I stood up for myself and he ended up saying it was based on intellectual contribution. It's whatever. At least I get another project that will be presented and written up under my belt. I'm going to move forward with my life and focus on other things that matter more than a squabble about 1st vs 2nd author. Thank you all for your help.